Military Review

Deck plane vertical takeoff. Defense plans and industry experience

244
Currently, Russian deck aviation equipped with Su-33 and MiG-29K fighters. Two types of aircraft are included in the aviation group of the only domestic aircraft carrier and successfully solve the tasks. Meanwhile, the leadership of the Ministry of Defense was already thinking about the further development of carrier-based aircraft. According to several recent statements, in the distant future, the fleet will be able to receive promising aircraft of vertical or shortened take-off. The military is interested in such technology, and the aviation industry is ready to fulfill the order.


In the past, several types of vertical take-off aircraft were developed and mass-produced in our country, but in the early nineties this direction was abandoned. A promising technology has once again begun to appear in the statements of officials only a few months ago. The start of the new discussions was given by the words of the Deputy Minister of Defense Yuri Borisov, voiced at the recent exhibition “Army-2017”.

Plans and statements

Speaking in the framework of the international military-technical forum “Army-2017”, held in August, the Deputy Minister of Defense revealed some plans of the military department in the context of development fleet. According to him, under the new state arms program, it is planned to develop and lay down a new aircraft carrier ship. Construction of a promising aircraft carrier may begin in the middle of the next decade.


One of the experienced aircraft Yak-36


In addition, the military are considering the possibility of creating a new aircraft designed for operation on a future aircraft carrier. Y. Borisov noted that such an aircraft may differ by a shortened takeoff or vertical takeoff. However, any details of the new project were not specified. Apparently, at that time, the command had not even formed the desired appearance of the new technology.

In the twenties of November, the Deputy Minister of Defense again raised the topic of building an aircraft carrier, and also touched upon the development of carrier-based aircraft. Y. Borisov recalled the existing Su-33 and MiG-29K aircraft, and also assessed their prospects. According to the deputy minister, such equipment will become obsolete and in ten years will need the creation of a completely new carrier-based aircraft.

Also, the representative of the military department clarified that there are already plans to create a new technology. We are talking about aircraft with a shortened take-off and landing, or about a car with a vertical take-off. The topic of developing new aircraft is being discussed in the context of the future State Armaments Program, which will operate until the middle of the next decade.

Just a few days ago, the aviation industry announced its view of the plans of the Ministry of Defense. The new information was announced by the Vice-President of the United Aircraft Corporation Sergey Korotkov and published by the Interfax news agency. The vice-president for innovation said that the KLA has the necessary scientific and technological reserve with which it will be possible to create promising vertical take-off aircraft for the new aircraft carrier.

S. Korotkov confirmed that the talk about the creation of vertical take-off aircraft is indeed conducted in the relevant circles. In addition, he recalled that even in the times of the Soviet Union a serious groundwork had been created in this area. The development bureau of A.S. Yakovlev. S. Korotkov believes that the achievements of this organization even now can be considered modern. With the appearance of the relevant order of the Ministry of Defense, the aviation industry can return to long-forgotten ideas.

In the past, even before the collapse of the USSR, several projects of vertical take-off aircraft were created by the designers of the Yakovlev company. Prototypes were built and tested. Also mass production was established. In the early nineties, work in this direction was suspended. Nevertheless, the technologies used in these projects, according to S. Korotkov, are still of interest.

The vice-president of the UAC believes that new ideas require new approaches: the development of promising aircraft should be carried out taking into account modern realities. Things done in the past lose their potential over time, first becoming mediocre and then completely losing relevance.


Yak-36М / 38 on the deck of an aircraft carrier, 1984


As follows from the words of S. Korotkov, the United Aircraft Corporation is not going to develop promising vertical or short take-off aircraft. Everything will depend on the wishes and decisions of the Ministry of Defense. If the command decides to order such equipment, the task will be set, and the industry will solve it.

History issue

Soviet aircraft designers took up the subject of vertical or short take-off aircraft in the late fifties. All the major design bureaus that specialized in fighter aircraft offered their versions of prototypes with various capabilities. The bureau of A.S. Yakovlev. It is this organization from the beginning of the sixties led the development of new aircraft, some of which even reached mass production and operation in naval aviation.

The first domestic aircraft of vertical take-off and landing remained in history under the name Yak-36. It was a traditional aerodynamic machine with two turbojet engines of sufficient power, equipped with rotating nozzles. For control on the modes of vertical take-off and hovering, gas rudders were used that were carried out on a special nose rod. It was built four prototypes of this type, which had certain differences. Despite the experimental nature of the project, the aircraft could carry up to 2 and missile and bomb weapons. Tests of four Yak-36 allowed to collect the necessary data and begin to develop a new machine that can fully solve combat missions.

A further development of the Yak-36 aircraft was the Yak-36М / Yak-38 project, within which the design of a deck attack aircraft for vertical take-off was proposed. This machine complied with the requirements of the Navy, which led to corresponding positive consequences. Yak-38 became the first Soviet car of its class, adopted for service and put in the series.

Yak-38 was equipped with two main-lift engines and one used only for vertical take-off and landing. The machine was completed with both aerodynamic and gas rudders. For greater safety of the pilot, the existing ejection seat was supplemented with an automatic control system. In the event of entering into unacceptable modes during vertical flight or hovering, the automatics had to save the pilot on their own. Aircraft Yak-36М / Yak-38 could carry a container with an automatic cannon, missiles and bombs of different types. The vertical take-off combat load was limited to 1000 kg. In the usual run-up, the plane could take up to 1,5 t weapons.

In the mid-seventies, mass production of new aircraft was launched in the interests of the navy. The Yak-38 could be used both on coastal airfields and on the aircraft-carrying cruisers of the 1143 “Krechet” project. Due to the limited size of the flight deck of such ships, the Yak-38 attack aircraft were used as vertical take-off aircraft.

In the mid-eighties, an improved version of the existing machine called the Yak-38M was created. Due to a certain processing of the structure and the use of new units, it was possible to obtain an increase in some characteristics. Overall capabilities, however, in general, remained at the same level.


Stormtrooper Yak-38M


A total of about 230 Yak-38 and Yak-38М were built. This technique was actively used by naval aviation, but the reviews about it were very restrained. The aircraft were not equipped with airborne radar, which reduced their combat potential. High fuel consumption of the three engines also adversely affected flight performance. Stormtroopers, flying up vertically, could carry only 1 t payload, consisting mainly of uncontrolled weapons. In addition, the vertical take-off and landing reduced the combat radius: this parameter did not exceed 200 km. Navy wits could not get past this feature of the aircraft, and came up with the insulting nicknames of the “mast defense plane”, “the deterrent weapon (it took off, scared, sat down)”, etc.

From the mid-seventies, the Yakovlev Design Bureau developed the Yak-41 vertical take-off aircraft, which was later renamed the Yak-141. During its creation it was planned to take into account the experience of testing and operating the existing Yak-38, as well as to eliminate the identified problems. By the mid-eighties, the project reached the stage of building prototypes. Ground checks continued until the 1987 year, when permission was received for the first flight.

The main feature of the project Yak-41 / 141 was the use of lift-main engine with a rotary nozzle, which provided horizontal and vertical take-off. During the vertical take-off, two additional lifting engines were also to be used. Aerodynamic control surfaces were complemented by a gas-jet system. To obtain the desired characteristics in vertical flight modes, we had to use an unusual airframe design. The main engine was moved to the center of the machine, and on its sides were placed two beams with tail assembly nodes.

Yak-141 had to reach speeds up to 1800 km / h and rise to heights up to 15 km. With a vertical take-off, he could lift the 1 t mass load, with an abrupt takeoff run, the 2,6 t. The aircraft had its own 30-mm automatic gun, and could also carry missiles and bombs, both free-falling and controlled. The presence of airborne radar significantly increased the combat potential of the aircraft in comparison with its predecessors.

Two aircrafts Yak-41 / 141 for several years performed more than 250 test flights in all modes. In 1991, the first landing on the deck of an aircraft carrier was made. In the foreseeable future, new-type production aircraft would have been incorporated into the deck aviation group of new aircraft carriers. However, this did not happen. An accident occurred in 1991, which resulted in one of the prototypes exiting the test program. In addition, the financing of the project was sharply reduced. Subsequent events led to a halt in work. Two prototypes used in flight tests, later became museum exhibits.

In the future, domestic aircraft manufacturers were working on certain variants of vertical or short take-off aircraft, but none of these projects even reached the construction of experimental equipment.

Future

According to several recent statements, the Russian military has again begun to show interest in vertical take-off aircraft. Moreover, the creation of a new machine of this class can be envisaged in the new state armament program. As indicated, such an aircraft should be developed in order to equip a promising aircraft carrier, whose construction starts in the distant future. Naturally, the development will start only if the military department decides to re-equip the carrier-based aircraft and reduce the share of "traditional" aircraft.


Yak-141 in flight, the engines are set to vertical takeoff


At the moment, apparently, the military is only considering the very possibility of equipping aircraft carriers with vertical take-off aircraft. As a result, any opinions on the appearance of the latter, if they exist, have not yet been turned into a full-fledged technical task. However, this may happen in the foreseeable future, and the industry will receive a list of requirements for a new aircraft.

How exactly the new domestic deck-based aircraft will look like - it's too early to say. At the same time, you can try to analyze the available information and make some predictions. So, evaluating the approximate characteristics of the future car, you should take into account foreign experience. To date, the United States has established a serial production of F-35B Lightning II airplanes, capable of taking off with a short run and land vertically. Obviously, such machines will never enter into service with the Russian Navy, but in this case, they clearly show what equipment can be created with the current level of technology.

The F-35B fighter-bomber shows that a modern machine of this class, without losing its flight characteristics, is capable of carrying weapons of several tons, developing supersonic speeds and solving combat missions at distances of hundreds of kilometers from the base. At the same time, however, obtaining such technical characteristics and combat capabilities was directly related to the solution of a number of complex tasks. Moreover, not all of them have been resolved by now.

It can be assumed that when creating a technical assignment for a new carrier-based aircraft, the Russian military department will take into account foreign experience. In addition, it is possible to form requirements with a direct eye on the American project. However, we cannot exclude another scenario, in which the groundwork for domestic enterprises will form the basis of the assignment.

It should be noted that the construction of a new aircraft carrier belongs to the mid-twenties. In the same period, the project of a prospective carrier-based aircraft will have to appear. Thus, work in the field of carrier-based aviation should begin in the foreseeable future, no later than in the next few years.

News about the start of work may appear at any time. At the same time, this or that information of a technical nature will be available to open access However, the Ministry of Defense and the aviation industry are unlikely to immediately publish all the interesting data. However, for obvious reasons, in the near future the situation is unlikely to move beyond preliminary discussions, which is why the public will have to wait for news on the progress of the project.


On the materials of the sites:
http://ria.ru/
http://interfax.ru/
http://tass.ru/
https://tvzvezda.ru/
https://aex.ru/
http://airwar.ru/
Author:
Photos used:
Wikimedia Commons
244 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Grandfather
    Grandfather 18 December 2017 06: 58
    +9
    an article about what might be in 15-20 years, or maybe not ...
    1. FID
      FID 18 December 2017 10: 02
      +6
      Most likely, it will not be ... Yu. Borisov - "talking head" ....
    2. xetai9977
      xetai9977 18 December 2017 10: 22
      +2
      in the mid-80s he was in the same room as an aviation officer who spoke very unflatteringly about the Yaks.
      1. Captain Pushkin
        Captain Pushkin 18 December 2017 10: 34
        +7
        Quote: xetai9977

        0
        xetai9977 Today, 10:22 ↑ New
        in the mid-80s he was in the same room as an aviation officer who spoke very unflatteringly about the Yaks.

        In the entire history of the Soviet Union, there was no more stupid and useless aircraft in service with the Yak-38
        1. bayard
          bayard 19 December 2017 06: 18
          +2
          Russia has a new Product-30 engine around which they will most likely build a vertical rail. With a maximum unmanned thrust of 11 tons of lifting and marching and 2 of 5,5 tons of lifting, we get 22 tons of lifting thrust, which means that you can sculpt a pepelats with a maximum take-off weight of 19 - 20 tons. On the afterburner, the 30th promises 18-19,5 tons, and this is already more than that of two MiG-29 engines. If you do not bother with the internal suspension of weapons and moderate to "stealth," you can get an apparatus with a speed of 2200 - 2300 km \ h, with a thrust-weight ratio of more than 1,0 and a range with a short take-off like the F-18. Ideally, of course. In addition, a supercarrier is not needed for such devices, but a rather average “Kiev” type with a springboard or even a UDC like “Mistral”. Having the characteristics of a good (good) fighter, it can also appeal to the VKS as a light multi-function one (we don’t have this yet, except for the remnants of the MiG-29), which can take off from taxiways, surviving sections of runways, highways and factory yards. There will be no restrictions when dispersing during the threatened period ... In general, if the authorities consider it necessary and the industry possible ... The main thing is that there is an engine around which you can dance, and besides, it is significantly lighter than the F-35th engine (more 3 tons). With such a machine, the dream of new aircraft carriers will become much more real - the Storm of our industry cannot be pulled for a long time.
          1. Nulgorod
            Nulgorod 23 December 2017 01: 25
            0
            Sooner or later, but all deck aircraft will become "vertical." Because it is extremely advisable and worth it to invest.
      2. mejik
        mejik 18 December 2017 12: 53
        +5
        Sorry, what about the room number?
      3. mejik
        mejik 18 December 2017 13: 43
        12
        I, in fact, what. Here, recently, I read the recollections of a man from the same room with Napoleon. You know, he spoke unflattering about Moscow.
        1. bayard
          bayard 19 December 2017 06: 28
          +4
          Almost all were unflattering about the Yak-38, especially pilots. But this was the first pancake on a strong-willed decision. The Yak-38M was already noticeably better. But the real hopes were on the Yak-141 ... and on the Yak-142 (a preliminary design from which the Americans licked their "F-35"). But they licked badly - they are still spitting, despite the removal of specialists from Yakovlev Design Bureau.
          1. mejik
            mejik 19 December 2017 15: 57
            0
            Quote: bayard
            Almost all were unflattering about the Yak-38, especially pilots


            Kamrad, I do not know a single pilot of this, and even more so dissatisfied with the YAK-38 airfield workers.
            1. Taoist
              Taoist 19 December 2017 17: 15
              +4
              Well, for the sake of justice ... it happened in different ways. And the nickname "rabid cucumber" she did not appear with a kondachka. Another question is that I don’t know of cases where everyone would like a car with such a percentage of novelty ... Well, about the fact that “everyone would scold” it wasn’t exactly like that ... In our regiments it was considered an honor to serve - unique cars, specialists of the highest qualifications, unique experience.
              1. mejik
                mejik 20 December 2017 01: 00
                0
                Quote: Taoist
                unique cars, highly qualified specialists, unique experience.

                Here I am talking about. Scolding is like signing inability. Not everyone is given, and then the rumors spread around the wards of the sick.
          2. Nikolaevich I
            Nikolaevich I 19 December 2017 18: 50
            0
            And for some reason, the Yak-201 project liked me in due time ... winked
  2. Misak Hananyan
    Misak Hananyan 18 December 2017 07: 03
    +8
    Yak-38 in Afghanistan
    1. Sevastiec
      Sevastiec 20 December 2017 17: 49
      +3
      Why is Harier on the screen saver ?? !!
  3. Nix1986
    Nix1986 18 December 2017 07: 11
    +4
    Well, yes, everything is logical and reasonable, for the sake of one foggy project in 1 copy, we will start another foggy project and cut the babos. Despite the fact that PAK DA projects are in pairs, the new interceptor, and the series is constantly being cut for PAK FA, can it focus on something really important ?!
    1. bayard
      bayard 19 December 2017 06: 42
      +1
      And at first, a lot of money will not be needed - a year or two there will be draft designs to coordinate, the terms of reference to be specified. And in a couple of years, the Su-57 will already be in the series, and the “Product-30” will be brought up ... and the design bureau is different, and there is a good start.
      1. Nix1986
        Nix1986 19 December 2017 06: 53
        +2
        Are you out of your mind ?! Armata, Kurgan, boomerang, T50, Iskander, C500, Ratnik, these are only large projects that I remembered, I’ll say easier dude where to get ?!
        1. bayard
          bayard 19 December 2017 17: 44
          +1
          And stay with some heavy fighters in the Air Force? And what is cheaper, to build a Storm aircraft carrier, or to develop a vertical plane according to existing backlogs, so that it sits on any platform, from a tanker to a corvette and any platform in the factory yard? For a vertical plane, the carrier is much simpler than a Storm with a nuclear heart, catapult (which we don’t have) and an aerofinisher. A Kiev-type carrier is an order of magnitude easier, cheaper and faster to build. Here you can save on this, take the Product-30 engine from the T-50, radar, etc. avionics from it, give everything it’s Yakovlev’s design bureau with his achievements ... And the main thing is to choose a good leader. In general, verticals were designed not for the aircraft carrier, but for operations in the conditions of destroyed airfields. Therefore, if the pepelats works out, it will be very popular both with us and in the market - will pay off.
          1. Nix1986
            Nix1986 20 December 2017 08: 52
            +2
            What nafig Kiev ?! We are not building a destroyer ... in general, stop the discussion, obvious things and you can’t even see.
          2. max702
            max702 28 March 2018 13: 12
            0
            Quote: bayard
            And what is cheaper, to build the Storm aircraft carrier, or to develop a vertical plane according to existing backlogs

            For money, a very big question is which is cheaper, but more so in terms of efficiency .. In terms of intelligence, to make 500 normal planes with modern missiles with this money is enough ..
        2. ssergn
          ssergn 19 December 2017 19: 54
          0
          And you take an interest from him https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mishustin__Mikhail_Vl
          admirovich
  4. Nikolay R-PM
    Nikolay R-PM 18 December 2017 07: 26
    +5
    interesting news, but the topic is controversial. Part of the article about the fact that the modern level allows achieving high-speed, high-speed, long-range and high-speed air navigation systems, in my opinion, overlooks the “scissors” of characteristics: range-payload, speed-loading of external suspensions, take-off-range method. The indicated characteristics of the Yak-41 more position it as a strike aircraft with the ability to conduct a defensive air battle. A small wing on take-off and landing modes does not allow to achieve good I / O - the aircraft is pulled by lifting engines.
    Despite the indicated shortcomings, I can’t but say about the tactical advantages of the AISS - the speed of an operational reaction to a command to take off, the possibility of simultaneous take-off of a group of aircraft, the possibility of basing on ships of lesser displacement (would they smile ) The history of aviation knows when complexes with low or relatively low performance were effectively used in combat thanks to tactics - remember the fights of Mig-17 and f-4 in Vietnam.
    In my opinion, even if Yak-41 type airborne forces appear, it’s only to strengthen the group or give it additional tactical flexibility. Perhaps in terms of composition they will seek a compromise between Mig29 and Hepotetic SVVP. I don’t think that ours will swing more than 18-20 tons on a car.
    1. Romario_Argo
      Romario_Argo 18 December 2017 10: 16
      +1
      I don’t think that ours will swing more than 18-20 tons of cars.

      probably yes. it will be a completely new machine, a new airframe under 2 marching taxiways with a rotary nozzle, 30 degrees spaced aft of the longitudinal axis (9000 kgf on take-off / 15000 kgf in normal mode), and coupled with a gearbox with a lifting 2-x fan circuit jet engine (10000 kgf). Plus 2000 inkjet rudders kgf. Mixture: a glider similar to the Yak-141, and a cabin similar to the Tu-22M, with internal arms compartments. It will result in thrust in 30 tons on take-off, with a dry weight of the machine in 20 tons, fuel 4 tons, weapons: 4 tons = 28 tons. Power ratio in horizontal flight = more than 1. (30000 kgf with a mass of 28 tons)
      Speed ​​will be limited by the glider features in 2100-2500 km / h.
      1. Captain Pushkin
        Captain Pushkin 18 December 2017 10: 41
        +4
        Quote: Romario_Argo
        Romario_Argo Today, 10:16 ↑ New
        I don’t think that ours will swing more than 18-20 tons of cars.

        probably yes. it will be a completely new machine, a new airframe under 2 marching taxiways with a rotary nozzle, 30 degrees spaced aft of the longitudinal axis (9000 kgf on take-off / 15000 kgf in normal mode), and coupled with a gearbox with a lifting 2-x fan circuit jet engine (10000 kgf). Plus 2000 inkjet rudders kgf. Mixture: a glider similar to the Yak-141, and a cabin similar to the Tu-22M, with internal arms compartments. It will result in thrust in 30 tons on take-off, with a dry weight of the machine in 20 tons, fuel 4 tons, weapons: 4 tons = 28 tons. Power ratio in horizontal flight = more than 1. (30000 kgf with a mass of 28 tons)
        Speed ​​will be limited by glider features at 2100-2500 km / h

        Lord save our budget from such a merchant and at the same time from aircraft carriers too.
        If these deputies of ministers at their own expense (and the accounts of the other budget cutters) develop and put into production (for export) such a super-duper flywheel, the flag is in their hands and the inspector with the prosecutor in their house.
        1. Romario_Argo
          Romario_Argo 18 December 2017 10: 52
          0
          it will be a transition aircraft to future drones without wing mechanization
          because longitudinal and transverse overloads will increase to the equivalent in 15G
          VTOL will be an integrated circuit, the air intakes are similar to the F-35, the cabin is the same as the Su-34 or Tu-22M, under the fan is the 1-circuit, 2-meter diameter from the lift taxiway
          Lifting marching engines with a rotary nozzle will have an output of jet rudders (with a rotary nozzle of 180 degrees 2 x 2000 kgf) to the tips of rigid wings, devoid of any mechanization. Maneuverability will be just revolutionary (!)
      2. Nikolay R-PM
        Nikolay R-PM 18 December 2017 21: 33
        +3
        I had in mind the total take-off weight of 18-20 tons)))
        didn’t you notice that the magic phrase “vertical take-off and landing” takes away the attention and thoughts of site visitors to another steppe? ATS is most often operated as a short take-off and landing airplane, which allows for acceptable take-off consumption. In essence, modern airborne aircraft are high-speed combat aircraft with relatively low take-off and landing speeds, plus advanced capabilities for controlling vertical speed. They can’t do without runway altogether, although for the above reason, in the case of land-based airborne combat aircraft, they can be less demanding on runway coverage than “classic” airplanes
    2. Sevastiec
      Sevastiec 18 December 2017 14: 34
      +1
      I recalled here: not so long ago, from the news, a topic that has been discussed for a couple of years, about a developed high-speed helicopter, has disappeared. Is not the best alternative would be a rotorcraft for attack carrier-based aircraft? The same convertiplanes, etc., perhaps? Yes, you can immediately forget about supersonic sound (although why the hell isn’t it joking?), But by other characteristics, it will be better than an airplane. Up to the point that he can conduct a defensive air battle.
      1. EvilLion
        EvilLion 18 December 2017 15: 23
        0
        Not so long ago on bmpt popped up.
        1. The comment was deleted.
        2. Sevastiec
          Sevastiec 20 December 2017 15: 11
          0
          What is bmpt? What exactly is what pop up about? what
          1. Nulgorod
            Nulgorod 23 December 2017 01: 28
            0
            BMPT? Like: Tank Support Fighting Vehicle. And I do not find other meanings request
  5. Herculesic
    Herculesic 18 December 2017 07: 33
    10
    I’m not tired of treating people with fairy tales - we are now unable to build a destroyer ourselves! We do not have our own good turbines, the diesel engine is also a problem, the fleet will get what we can create but not what the fleet needs! With the Liberians in power, the surface fleet will have nothing new for decades to come! !! You need to forget forever, the words "aircraft carrier", "cruiser" is not for our fleet! One "Kuznetsov" is completely worn out, every year they are naughty, instead of overhaul! Alas, in our country an aircraft carrier, like a new cruiser, will NEVER be built! !!!!
    1. arkadiyssk
      arkadiyssk 18 December 2017 13: 52
      +1
      All right, you are indignant, but there are no “liberals in power” for a long time - there have been no liberal views for 20 years. All of these Karakurts are built under the power of effective managers.
      1. Blackgrifon
        Blackgrifon 18 December 2017 22: 08
        +1
        Quote: arkadiyssk
        All of these Karakurts are built under the power of effective managers.

        You already decide what is more important: the fleet of the open sea or tightly cover your coast, having the ability to carry out small expeditionary operations.
    2. EvilLion
      EvilLion 18 December 2017 15: 25
      +1
      Do you really think that a country designing PAK FA level planes will not be able to build a destroyer in 7-10 thousand tons? Rather, she’s not particularly not that the aircraft carrier, the destroyer is not needed.
      1. bayard
        bayard 19 December 2017 07: 07
        0
        All this to the former Country of Soviets is NEEDED, but it cannot ... yet. Turbines for frigates and anti-aircraft defense for them also bring, bring, promise the other day to bring. “Orlan” will come out of modernization in a year or two, and with it a couple of cruisers upgraded with “Granites-Basalts”. The BODs are still walking around, and after modernization they promise to push the Caliber ... if the Sarychi destroyers were brought back to life, but the UVP instead of the 40-caliber feed stock ... But there is no one to repair the Sarychi now - they are standing in turbine boilers but the manufacturer hasn’t been around since the 90s ... Well, only frigate corvettes should wait for 5–10 years, but maybe a UDC helicopter carrier, but what engines should he put?
  6. inkass_98
    inkass_98 18 December 2017 07: 35
    +3
    Quite a good plane was the Yak-141, whose bare ears stick out in the guise of an F-35B.
    Before solving the problem with the SVP aircraft, it is necessary to determine its necessity for the army and navy, but there is no such certainty. If they decide to build a normal aircraft carrier with a tonnage of 100 thousand tons, then he does not need such aircraft, they will cost an air wing similar to the existing one. And if the “pocket” version of the aircraft carrier will cost, then in this case you can think about a plane with SVP.
    1. Grandfather
      Grandfather 18 December 2017 08: 58
      +1
      Quote: inkass_98
      Quite a good plane was the Yak-141, whose bare ears stick out in the guise of an F-35B.

      how to judge what was not? prototype yes, it was. and bad, not bad, only operation would show.
    2. MadCat
      MadCat 18 December 2017 18: 41
      +2
      Quote: inkass_98
      Quite a good plane was the Yak-141, whose bare ears stick out in the guise of an F-35B.

      completely different cars, what is it from Yak? Electronics are completely their own, the engine is superior to the misunderstanding that was on the UC, even the circuit diagram is different. request
      1. Taoist
        Taoist 18 December 2017 20: 16
        +3
        And here you are wrong too. The main thing - namely, the PMD swivel nozzle with FC - is there from Yak. And the circuit there is actually identical - only instead of the PD a lifting fan is an impeller - which, by the way, is heavier and more difficult to manage than a circuit with a PD.
        1. Blackgrifon
          Blackgrifon 18 December 2017 22: 08
          0
          Interestingly, but not easier to implement the S-54 project (more compact, cheaper and (most importantly) unpretentious to the runway)?
        2. MadCat
          MadCat 19 December 2017 01: 24
          0
          Quote: Taoist
          And here you are wrong too. The main thing - namely, the PMD swivel nozzle with FC - is there from Yak. And the circuit there is actually identical - only instead of the PD a lifting fan is an impeller - which, by the way, is heavier and more difficult to manage than a circuit with a PD.

          laughed so laughed, it turns out everything is identical, only different. laughing
          shtob you know with swivel nozzles Americans have been experimenting since the 50s of the last century.
          1. bayard
            bayard 19 December 2017 07: 35
            +2
            Somewhat disappoint you in your Americanophilism. The F-35 was designed on the basis of the Yak-142 project, and the documentation was officially purchased with the permission of the Russian government in the 90s. Together with the documentation (again officially) a group of designers of Yakovlev Design Bureau was removed under the contract. I talked with one of them in 2005 and he boasted about my wristwatch donated by Bush ... And if there was a patriot among this group who had thought up amers to force the F-35 power kit from duralumin, then he avenged our entire ruined aircraft industry !!! They are now with IT to fly - to amuse the nations of the world. If not laziness, google Wakipedia Yak-142, there a sketch is given. There is no this bloated ugliness, but Stealth technology is provided. They also wanted to use a fan in it ... Now a new Product-30 engine has appeared, which is more compact and lighter than the AL-41F by 15 percent, and more powerful (18 - 19,5 tons), and more economical. Together with a rotary afterburner nozzle, it will weigh about 2000 - 2300 kg, against 3000 or more kg. the F-35. Already saving weight about a ton. And if you refuse the fan? And if from the internal suspension? We will get a swallow with a take-off weight of 18 - 20 tons, a speed of 2200 - 2300 km / h (if not 2500, then they’ll try to do aerodynamics), and a combat radius of 800 - 900 km. The thrust-weight ratio of 1,0 and higher, which means that maneuverability will be excellent. And most importantly - HURT IS!
            1. MadCat
              MadCat 19 December 2017 08: 21
              +1
              Quote: bayard
              Somewhat disappoint you in your Americanophilism. The F-35 was designed on the basis of the Yak-142 project, and the documentation was officially purchased with the permission of the Russian government in the 90s.

              in order to believe all this, or that the brain atrophies or drink a lot, are you still sniffing it there?
              I am just competent enough to know the fiction written by you. Do you even imagine the volume of this documentation? Troll are you unpainted, also "officially redeemed" ???? fool
              1. Spez
                Spez 19 December 2017 11: 13
                +3
                but without hysteria can you tell what, who and when did? There are a lot of infa in the network, even several articles on VO, but all with some kind of strange political soul, and from people who do not have competence in this matter. I would like first-hand, so to speak ...
              2. bayard
                bayard 19 December 2017 18: 24
                +2
                How old is such a "competent" child? Anyone interested in the subject knows this story (a contract with Yakovlev Design Bureau at the official request of the United States and with the permission of the Russian government) ... You should come to us in Donetsk for Promka or Gorlovka for re-education, check your "competence" ...
          2. maximghost
            maximghost 19 December 2017 10: 29
            +1
            So what were the results? And what kind?
            1. Spez
              Spez 19 December 2017 11: 06
              +1
              The results were, although not impressive. Conver drew a rotary nozzle according to this scheme in the sixties, but failed in iron. Our in the seventies were able to bring the idea to a really working product. As there further these swings swung, it is not particularly important. The main thing is that the task of reaching supersonic and using afterburner in the vertical take-off mode is no longer a problem.
              1. maximghost
                maximghost 19 December 2017 15: 33
                +1
                Well, my message was not addressed to you, but to Medket. Here the answers are sort of weirdly sorted.
                1. Spez
                  Spez 19 December 2017 22: 52
                  +1
                  I just climbed into a branch, I'm sorry. I thought you were sincerely interested.
                  1. maximghost
                    maximghost 20 December 2017 01: 09
                    +1
                    It's okay. Repeating any information on VO will never be superfluous. Especially when even in the article errors.
          3. Taoist
            Taoist 19 December 2017 11: 37
            +4
            I won’t make anyone laugh ... You’re smashing nonsense so that it already screeches. experimenting with rotary nozzles does not mean getting a result. To push the FC into the rotary supersonic nozzle and get stable operation of the engine is a very complicated gas-dynamic problem. And it was decided with us. Sold to KB Yakovlev, these developments saved the United States 10 years and several billion at least. The structural concept of this node on the F35 is identical. Everything else is partial ... Once again, I emphasize that simple fact that I know this story not on an Internet ...
            1. Snakebyte
              Snakebyte 26 January 2018 16: 00
              0
              That's just this design scheme worked out in the West back in the late 60s. The 3BSN rotary nozzle mechanism was developed by RR back in 1964 for the RB.153-76A engine according to the German project VJ 101E, and until 67, the engine and the nozzle passed quite successful ground tests, including fire tests. In 1968-69, the same engine was developed under the AVS project. By the way, for this project, for the first time, a scheme with a lifting fan with a gas-dynamic drive was worked out.
              By the time work began on the Yak-41, the nozzle mechanism was already in the museum of the company, where it remains today.
              A bit later, Yakovlevites used not only the 3BSN scheme, but also the general layout scheme of the VJ 101E, which is generally not surprising, since at the time of completion of work on supersonic VTOL in Europe, this scheme was considered the most promising.

              The Americans also had their own developments - the Pratt & Whitney JTF22A-30A engine (F401 variant), intended for installation on the Convair Model 200.

              We look at the layout of the engines. Doesn’t resemble anything? And this is 1973.
              The documentation in the Yakovlev Design Bureau was indeed purchased, but the Americans were not interested in the scheme as such, but in the results of practical tests.
              1. Taoist
                Taoist 26 January 2018 18: 04
                +1
                I’ll tell you a terrible secret ... there are a lot of theoretical schemes on which much was done in advance ... And there are not so many of them in fact, layout schemes. But here is a really working circuit that has passed fire tests ... here ... everything is more complicated. In any case, before the 41 working supersonic rotary nozzle with FC did not exist.
                1. Snakebyte
                  Snakebyte 27 January 2018 08: 41
                  0
                  Before you reveal terrible secrets, and disgrace such statements
                  But here is a really working circuit that has passed fire tests ... here ... everything is more complicated. In any case, up to the 41st working supersonic rotary nozzle with FC did not exist.
                  could search a bit, because I gave the names existing products. This photo is very easy to find:

                  Look at the date under the torch photo. On the Yak-41, even the first studies have not yet begun.
                  1. Taoist
                    Taoist 27 January 2018 09: 48
                    +1
                    The fact that such tests were carried out is not a fact that they successfully ended ... In any case, the program for creating a "superharrier" was covered with a copper basin. The flying model brought to the series and the engine worked (it is not known how long) at the stand ... two big differences ...
                    1. Snakebyte
                      Snakebyte 28 January 2018 10: 06
                      0
                      Stop dodging already.
                      1. The tests were successful, the engine can be found in at least two museums.
                      2. The creation of supersonic VTOL aircraft was abandoned for other reasons. Firstly, the rejection of the doctrine of massive nuclear war (during which all major airfields would have been destroyed), and secondly, 4-generation fighters were approaching that did not require a multi-kilometer runway to take off and land.
                      3. Despite the “flying model brought to the series”, LM’s cooperation with Yakovlev Design Bureau was curtailed, the lifting system was developed by RR, which had its own achievements long before (even if the documentation of Yakovlev Design Bureau was transferred to him).
                      In general, to say that LM saved ten years and billions is a huge exaggeration.
                  2. Pingo
                    Pingo 24 February 2018 17: 31
                    0
                    You don’t stand out by yourself. If the tests were successful, they would use it on the Harrier or on the supersonic from 1972 to 1981
                    https://topwar.ru/122543-eksperimentalnyy-samolet
                    -rockwell-xfv-12-ssha.html
                    RR had an X-32 in England with a square, non-rotating nozzle.
                    1. Snakebyte
                      Snakebyte 25 February 2018 08: 26
                      0
                      The tests were successful, the engine is in the museum.
                      On the "Harrier" put the engine with a single nozzle? Are you serious?
                      By the beginning of the 70s, interest in supersonic vertical lines disappeared - on the approach were 4th-generation fighters that did not require a multi-kilometer runway for takeoff / landing. The fleet preferred large classical aircraft carriers to small VTOL aircraft. As a result, the CALF program was merged with the JAST program into the JSF program.
                      1. Pingo
                        Pingo 25 February 2018 21: 13
                        0
                        In the museum it’s not on the interesting XFV-12 which is also going to be restored and put there now. Harrier could only redo the tail.
                        Is the F-35B now also due to its absence? It’s not gone yet, although the 5th flies for a long time, but everything goes to that.
  7. Cxnumx
    Cxnumx 18 December 2017 07: 52
    +2
    I think the loss from vertical take-off is too large compared to the pluses. short run, possibly vert. landing, like an American, is, in my opinion, interesting and feasible without significant drawdown in other parameters.
  8. EvilLion
    EvilLion 18 December 2017 08: 49
    +9
    My question is, if you put a dead load weighing a ton into the plane, how can it not lose in flight performance ??? Does the author have a head at all ?? And it loses the F-35B, it even loses, in particular, the maximum caliber of the bomb drops to 454 kg, against almost a ton for conventional and deck modifications. And the gun is pulled out of it. For the sake of placement of the take-off tiller, you have to go to reduce the functionality and performance characteristics.

    In the foreseeable future, serial aircraft of a new type were to become part of the deck-based aviation group of new aircraft carriers. However, this did not happen.


    And if the USSR had not collapsed, this would not have happened either, since aircraft carriers of the Ulyanovsk type had to be equipped with a decked version of the Su-27. At the same time, the possibility of vertical take-off did not cancel the need to take off horizontally. 1 tons of load on a MiG-29-sized aircraft you know, it's not even funny.

    Despite the experimental nature of the project, the aircraft could carry up to 2 tons of missile and bomb weapons.


    And as it came to business, so even the Yak-38 for some reason could not fly up in Afghanistan. Apparently, all the tests were carried out at sea level, on cold January days. Actually, the first flights of many cars were in winter, because on a clear frosty day both visibility is excellent and the air density is maximum, so the engines are max. give traction.

    Although in the case of the Yak-36, then throw a bunch of equipment, hammer on a resource, the experimental machine does not need this, here you have it. However, the Yak-38 is such a full-time airplane that even the "harrier" against its background begins to look like a miracle of technology.

    In general, the essence of the news is as follows, again, someone whines that vertical lines are needed, well, maybe once again they’ll figure something out, they will get the expected result, that even against MiG-29K everything looks sad, and there are no aircraft carriers and are not expected. This will end there, someone will receive a small amount of money for the calculations and calm down for a while.
    1. Taoist
      Taoist 18 December 2017 11: 56
      +3
      Do not bring nonsense ... 38y was not inferior to Harrier in any way if you compare the comparable ... Harrier was ahead of him except in the number of disasters.
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 18 December 2017 12: 47
        +3
        "Harrier was ahead of him except in the number of disasters." ////

        Harrier fought a lot. Both the British and the American Marines.
        Many hours in the air - more accidents / disasters.
        1. Taoist
          Taoist 18 December 2017 16: 13
          +3
          At Harrier there was (and still is not) a rescue system in vertical modes ... So the point is not in intensity ... Even if you translate into flight hours / disasters. I hope you know the difference between a crash and a crash.
      2. EvilLion
        EvilLion 18 December 2017 15: 27
        +1
        To begin with, the Yak-38 in its prohibitive accuracy did not even have a radar. Unlike the less full-time Harrier. Further you can not even continue.
        1. Taoist
          Taoist 18 December 2017 16: 15
          +4
          The radar on the Yak was simply not needed - it was not a fighter. Harrier assault modifications also did not have it. But on 41m the radar (and an order of magnitude better) stood.
          1. EvilLion
            EvilLion 18 December 2017 16: 51
            0
            Of course not. Such wretched fighters simply do not take.
            1. Dalailama
              Dalailama 24 December 2017 15: 40
              0
              Google "Yak-39" and find with it just one difference.
    2. arkadiyssk
      arkadiyssk 18 December 2017 13: 56
      +2
      And the gun is pulled out of it. Here is nonsense - the gun, if anything, was pulled out of Harrier and existed in the form of a fastening module. So this is a proven Marines scheme that suits them and which they transferred to the F-35B.
      1. EvilLion
        EvilLion 18 December 2017 15: 31
        +1
        Well, you need to save weight, but a gun is not always needed. Although, of course, if you put a gun in a hanging container, the container does not weigh anything and does not create resistance. You can pull everything out and cheerfully fly on trials, or exercises without load, and then, when you need to perform real tasks and the question arises, what is needed and what is needed, and yet this, so all the verticality will disappear somewhere, like the transporter function disappeared from Mi-24, as soon as it was necessary to carry missiles, but in thin air.
      2. Taoist
        Taoist 18 December 2017 16: 18
        +1
        The gun was originally, then it was abandoned in favor of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on the latest modifications it reappeared (in the form of an integral container). Given the fact that 38 was not intended for air combat, this is an absolutely logical decision. On 41m the gun is built-in.
        1. bayard
          bayard 19 December 2017 07: 50
          0
          You seem to have a professional relationship with the Yak deck. If so, what is it like piloting, especially when landing?
          1. Taoist
            Taoist 19 December 2017 11: 50
            +3
            I didn’t just relate to them ... this is my specialization - I graduated from them and served in them ... Of course, very few of us graduated, there were probably less specialists on the subject than cosmonauts.
            for piloting, not quite an expert (for an engineer and not a pilot), but since our regiment was considered "leader" and all the retraining of pilots for combat regiments took place precisely from what they said I can say:
            1) The machine in piloting was quite simple, very similar in behavior and performance characteristics in airplane mode to the MIG 21 (by the way, in the 1 regiment the squadron was exactly the MIG 21 - to develop skills so that the product’s life would not be eaten in vain)
            2) The vertical modes are not hard to say either (the automation worked well), but it was difficult to break the pilot's instincts ... Even at one time they tried to retrain helicopter pilots - but there the opposite situation - the management is different. Retraining took about six months. In principle, there were no big problems, although some could not.
            The yak for the pilot was uncomplicated, had a very strong chassis and often forgave even very serious mistakes. The main trouble was in the failure of traction near the ground during vertical landing in calm weather. Usually, to avoid this, they would sit down with a little slippage. Again, automation greatly helped, there was a case when the car got in without a pilot. He rocked the car during landing - the SK-EM worked - and he was catapulted. the automatics leveled the car and she sat down ... I somehow even laid out a photo here. There is a Yak with a broken flashlight and a slightly wrinkled nose ... the car was restored in the TEC for 2 weeks.
            1. bayard
              bayard 19 December 2017 18: 44
              +1
              Thank . Very informative . I only heard second hand about Yaks - I myself served in air defense. I saw them in Saki, but I didn’t have a chance to talk to the flyers ... But I probably need such an airplane, it will solve many problems ... and save money on aircraft carriers, the airfield network in unequipped places. After all, even the Yak-141 in terms of tabular characteristics was not inferior to the F-18 - speed, range, on-board radar ... And what kind of swell can be made on an engine with a thrust of 18 - 19 tons and weighing less than AL-31F ...
              1. sa-ag
                sa-ag 22 December 2017 12: 51
                0
                Quote: bayard
                And what kind of swell can be made on an engine with a thrust of 18 - 19 tons and a weight less than AL-31F ...

                This “swell” will have three engines, one of which will be mostly dead weight and increased fuel consumption, the mass will increase again, the losses will be in the set of speed and altitude the excess weight of the third engine will affect, in the confrontation with the aircraft of the classical scheme it will lose
                1. bayard
                  bayard 24 February 2018 14: 21
                  0
                  The dead load of this swell will be TWO vertical thrust engines! But they will be much lighter and more compact than the F-35th fan. Losses during climb and speed will not be for no reason. Lift engines will devour the weight of a possible fuel supply or bomb load (compared to a conventional aircraft), but new materials, engines with a higher specific thrust, economy, less weight ... In general, VTOL aircraft will have a slightly lower combat radius when taking off with a run his usual classmates. And that’s it!
  9. Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 18 December 2017 09: 23
    +3
    In terms of the amount of manpower and equipment expended, the development of VTOL aircraft is superior to the creation of a medium-light fifth-generation fighter (given that there is already a lot of things, thanks to the Su-5). And the number of VTOL aircraft in pieces, which is needed and will be released miserably compared to a light / medium fighter, as well as their export ... And the use of VTOL aircraft at sea against AUG aircraft is very small (They are smaller and have a lower technical performance)
    I don’t understand at all who is driving such ideas.
  10. Spez
    Spez 18 December 2017 09: 56
    +2
    The Yak-38 was equipped with two lifting and marching engines and one that was used only for vertical take-off and landing.

    Quite the opposite. One PMD and two PD.
  11. Serzh_R
    Serzh_R 18 December 2017 10: 07
    +1
    It would not be bad to teach the SU57 to fly like that.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 18 December 2017 10: 37
      +6
      Quote: Serzh_R
      It would not be bad to teach the SU57 to fly like that.

      The only question is what are you willing to give up in order to get this vertical take-off?
  12. Soho
    Soho 18 December 2017 10: 08
    +1
    it is worth cutting VTOL aircraft only if R&D subsequently breaks down with the purchase of machines for the needs of the Navy MA. And pouring a bunch of dough for the sake of acquiring AG Kuznetsov (and an increase in the number of aircraft-carrying ships, even in the foreseeable future, is hardly expected) is not at all rational
  13. Spez
    Spez 18 December 2017 10: 08
    +1
    Quote: Zaurbek
    In terms of the amount of manpower and equipment expended, the development of VTOL aircraft is superior to the creation of a medium-light fifth-generation fighter (given that there is already a lot of things, thanks to the Su-5). And the number of VTOL aircraft in pieces, which is needed and will be released miserably compared to a light / medium fighter, as well as their export ... And the use of VTOL aircraft at sea against AUG aircraft is very small (They are smaller and have a lower technical performance)
    I don’t understand at all who is driving such ideas.

    Let's not rush to pile everything together. The VTOL topic is an unplowed field. Operating experience at the moment indicates that not only in the fleet, but also on land can not do without them. Yes, the technologies that are used now are not perfect, the planes are not effective, compared with the "land" options, but if you do not develop it, then we won’t get anything.
    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 18 December 2017 10: 36
      +4
      Quote: Spez
      Operating experience at the moment vertical lines shows that in the near future, they can not do without them not only on the fleet, but also on land.

      ??? Failure to provide air defense of the naval formation at the Falklands, miserable combat effectiveness in the Desert Bure ... What did I miss? :)))
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 18 December 2017 11: 09
        +8
        Attached to airfields - Achilles heel of aviation since
        her birth. No runway - no aviation.
        “Kill” enemy airfields - there will be no need to chase after each of his aircraft.
        Only a blind person can overlook this fatal vulnerability.
        And the ONLY solution is vertical.
        1. Spez
          Spez 18 December 2017 11: 30
          +2
          And the ONLY solution is vertical.

          Especially for states with a small territory, a large population, and restless neighbors. And with the lack of the ability and need to contain floating aircraft carrier formations.
          1. voyaka uh
            voyaka uh 18 December 2017 12: 44
            +4
            You are absolutely right. For Israel, the purchase of verticals is extremely important.
            I regret that part of the procured F-35, not F-35B.
            Few airfields and many planes are a strategically dangerous situation.
            1. Spez
              Spez 18 December 2017 12: 59
              +1
              Well, under the vertical lines, too, platforms need to be equipped, but it’s the "five-copeck coins", and not kilometer lanes.
              On the issue of acquiring F-35B instead of F-35 ... You will not have so many of them in order to somehow seriously complicate the situation at airfields. To all, the humpbacked skates of skyhawks and phantoms will probably be written off in a ratio of about three to two 35th.
              1. voyaka uh
                voyaka uh 18 December 2017 14: 01
                +1
                "but it is" five-copeck coins ", ////

                Yes. And they are easy to mask.
                Or - in an emergency - pieces of highway, helipads,
                parking lots. And combat aircraft will survive, and will be functional.

                "To everything, the humpbacked skates of the skyhawks and phantoms will probably be written off /////

                Skyhawks, mirages, and phantoms have been written off for a long time. Remained F-16, F-15 and F-35.
                1. Spez
                  Spez 18 December 2017 14: 52
                  +1
                  I read that they were decommissioned for storage, i.e. I realized that they stand in hangars or on platforms and take up space, spend resources on maintenance, etc. Well, decommissioned, and decommissioned. there and the road. So the 16th will slowly replace.
                2. ALEX_SHTURMAN
                  ALEX_SHTURMAN 22 December 2017 12: 54
                  0
                  But you don’t need technical maintenance for the flight, or are you technicians with missiles and bombs refueling, and other parts, will you drive workshops on all highways? .. The base is the base if it is destroyed no vertical lines will help you ...
                  1. The comment was deleted.
                  2. Spez
                    Spez 22 December 2017 14: 56
                    +1
                    zvo.su/VVS/tylovoe-obespechenie-vvs-ssha.html
                    The last section has very interesting information about this.
                  3. bk0010
                    bk0010 23 December 2017 15: 32
                    0
                    If vertical lines appear that you can really fight, then for them they will make not only a mobile refueling and maintenance convoy, but also a mobile military brothel, if necessary. New tactical applications and removal of aerodrome vulnerability are worth it.
        2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 18 December 2017 13: 40
          +2
          Quote: voyaka uh
          Only a blind person can overlook this fatal vulnerability.

          Do not tell me in which war and which enemy was able to destroy the enemy airfields so that his aircraft was paralyzed? :)))))
          1. voyaka uh
            voyaka uh 18 December 2017 13: 57
            +3
            You are looking forward, not backward. The possibility of deep strikes on enemy lines is growing all the time. There is no longer a safe rear concept
            (as, for example, the Urals during the Second World War or the entire territory of the United States in the 2nd World War).
            And this applies not only to more vulnerable small states, like Israel, but also to territorial giants like Russia or the United States.
            1. apro
              apro 18 December 2017 14: 13
              0
              It is difficult to argue with Vojaka on military issues, competent arguments, a person understands the essence of the problem, vertical lines solve the problem of maneuver by aircraft, its survivability, and flexibility of use.
            2. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 18 December 2017 14: 17
              +6
              Quote: voyaka uh
              You are looking forward, not backward.

              Look. I do not see VTOL, Khuchubey :)))
              Quote: voyaka uh
              There is no longer a safe rear concept

              let's be realistic. In order for a modern aircraft to carry out combat activities, it needs a bunch of everything and the runway is one of the components. Need fuel, ammunition, maintenance, etc. And if suddenly, by some miracle, a certain country receives a magic wand that can “bend” all enemy airfields (which even the quietest air forces of the multinational forces could not do during a Storm in a glass), then who prevents it from banging not GDP (which, incidentally, is not so it’s difficult to fix it) and storage of fuel, ammunition, etc.
              And the ATSS will remain at the aerodromes in the same way as conventional aviation. And where is the profit?
              1. EvilLion
                EvilLion 18 December 2017 15: 38
                0
                They do not understand this, they have a rustic level of thinking.
              2. voyaka uh
                voyaka uh 18 December 2017 15: 59
                +2
                “And the ATSS will remain at the airdromes in the same way as ordinary aviation. And where is the profit here?” ///

                You again do not understand. VTOL aircraft will remain standing not on airfields, but on disguised spots.
                Where they will be thrown fuel and ammunition. Decentralized.
                With the "cancellation" of aerodromes, depots at aerodromes are also canceled.
                1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                  Andrei from Chelyabinsk 18 December 2017 17: 06
                  +2
                  Quote: voyaka uh
                  You again do not understand. VTOL aircraft will remain standing not on airfields, but on disguised spots.
                  Where they will be thrown fuel and ammunition. Decentralized.

                  I apologize, how do you see this for yourself? :))))) Who will dump what will they do if there are no airfields? :)))) And where will they get this fuel and ammunition from if they were already bombed a little?
                  The Air Force, like any other branch of the armed forces, needs supplies. If the enemy has the ability to interrupt this supply, the Air Force will stand up. And here is some amazing selectivity. The enemy easily makes airfields, but at the same time is unable to suppress openly standing aircraft without a radar, without an air defense system, and so on and so forth, and is unable to oppose their supply.
                  1. voyaka uh
                    voyaka uh 18 December 2017 18: 56
                    0
                    "The enemy lightly makes airfields, but is unable to suppress openly
                    standing aircraft without radar, without air defense systems and so on and so forth, and is unable to counteract their supply. "////

                    You finally understood the situation: exactly as you described.
                    Destroy a concentrated mass of warehouses, hangars, airplanes (that is, an aerodrome) is EASIER than scattered "piglets",
                    separate fuel trucks, and separate war supply vehicles. Compare: Iskander’s strike with a cluster warhead at an airfield or a patch. In the second case, he will destroy ONE plane and ONE fuel truck. In the first case, dozens.
                    1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
                      Andrei from Chelyabinsk 18 December 2017 21: 57
                      +1
                      Quote: voyaka uh
                      Destroy a concentrated mass of warehouses, hangars, airplanes (that is, an aerodrome) is EASIER than scattered "piglets",

                      I can not agree with these
                      Quote: voyaka uh
                      separate fuel trucks, and separate war supply vehicles. Compare: Iskander’s strike with a cluster warhead at an airfield or a patch. In the second case, he will destroy ONE plane and ONE fuel truck. In the first case, dozens

                      In the first strike, the enemy knocks out existing airfields and an airborne lighting system. Ground radars - do not work, AWACS - do not fly. And after that, the usual work of aviation begins, according to previously known coordinates (photos of standing VTOL aircraft from space) and VTOL aircraft are destroyed by everyone, including free-falling bombs
                      1. Taoist
                        Taoist 18 December 2017 22: 59
                        +3
                        Andrei ... well, not so much all this ... in the first photo from space, they are not omnipotent ... and most importantly, you need to know in advance where this machine will be relocated from dozens of possible points ... Our regiment was dismantled after two hours and " scattered "on points. And the supply and security for this case are calculated. Moreover, ABATO sculpted platforms and caponiers in a matter of hours, there were never any of them there ...
        3. arkadiyssk
          arkadiyssk 18 December 2017 14: 06
          +1
          Well, 50 Tomahawks in Syria were badly killed? How long does it take to patch up a few holes in GDP after a raid? 24 hours until a layer of concrete, on top of a packed rammed pit, gains 60% strength?
          1. voyaka uh
            voyaka uh 18 December 2017 16: 03
            0
            1) Americans WARNED Russians about shelling the base in 1,5 hours (so
            none of the Russians died). And the Russians, of course, warned the Syrians.
            Therefore, no one died.
            2) The base resumed operation 2 weeks after the shelling.
        4. Per se.
          Per se. 18 December 2017 14: 09
          +1
          Quote: voyaka uh
          And the ONLY solution is vertical.
          In this I am with you, Alex, I agree. Will there be solidarity and our MO (Russian), a big question. Perhaps it would be worth remembering forgotten old ideas, such as launching ground planes from a ground-based catapult (or a ground springboard), or the similarity of “Threads”, for accepting a short landing with ground arresting gear, possibly in a mobile version, as sections of a pontoon ferry.
          1. EvilLion
            EvilLion 18 December 2017 15: 40
            +1
            And there are rocket boosters. However, the fighters almost do not care, they take off almost instantly, it is more difficult to land.
          2. t7310
            t7310 20 December 2017 15: 33
            +1

            I think the most reasonable solution for the vertical is four engines, and it sits on a ... um tail, well, or four wings with rotary engines like quadcopters, but this is a brain-bracking with engines in the middle which during the flight never worked
        5. EvilLion
          EvilLion 18 December 2017 15: 35
          +1
          Well, yes, given that the vertical can only be used with hard heat-resistant coatings. From the point of view of operational suitability, they are even inferior to conventional machines, for which it is enough to equate the holes in the runway, which is done very quickly.
        6. Dart2027
          Dart2027 18 December 2017 20: 00
          +1
          Quote: voyaka uh
          “Kill” enemy airfields - there will be no need to chase after each of his aircraft.

          An airfield is not only an airspace, but also a maintenance without which any aircraft will quickly become a pile of iron, plus fuel and weapons reserves that you can’t just hang on it too.
      2. Spez
        Spez 18 December 2017 11: 18
        +2
        What I wrote further:
        the technologies that are used now are not perfect, the planes are not effective, compared with the "land" options, but if you do not develop it, then we won’t get anything.

        If Mozhaisky or the Wright brothers had once relied on horses or steam engines, for example ...
        Regarding the need to develop VTOL, I will explain my point. Firstly, it is convenient. What - I will not explain. Secondly, consider an example. For a quick deployment of the bridgehead, one can land troops, parachute a bunch of excavators, concrete mixers, etc., and in Stakhanovsky build a runway that works poorly for a month or two, capable of ensuring the functioning of a division-two in a sluggish operation to cut Barmalean beards. Under the terms of the task, for example, again, trains do not go there, ships do not moor, desert, mountains, jungles, swamps at a distance of 500-700 km from the nearest aircraft carrier. In the presence of VTOL aircraft, both transporters (why not, by the way ?!), and attack aircraft / fighters, the task is simplified significantly.
        Almost all science fiction written over the past two hundred years has become a reality. Moreover, reality has far surpassed fantasies. It would not be logical to deprive oneself of the future;)
        1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
          Andrei from Chelyabinsk 18 December 2017 13: 55
          +5
          Quote: Spez
          Regarding the need to develop VTOL, I will explain my point. Firstly, it’s convenient

          For your opponents? Quite.
          Quote: Spez
          For a quick deployment of the bridgehead, one can land troops, parachute a bunch of excavators, concrete mixers, etc., and in Stakhanovsky build a runway that works poorly for a month or two, capable of ensuring the functioning of a division-two in a sluggish operation to cut Barmalean beards

          Horror:)))
          Quote: Spez
          Under the terms of the task, for example, again, trains do not go there, ships do not moor, desert, mountains, jungle, swamps at a distance of 500-700 km from the nearest aircraft carrier

          Do you think about it - where did the barmaley come from in quantities requiring 2 divisions? :))))) What do they eat there, what do they protect, where do the ammunition come from? According to the terms of the "task", they do not have VTOL.
          Quote: Spez
          In the presence of VTOL aircraft, both transporters (why not, by the way ?!), and attack aircraft / fighters, the task is simplified significantly.

          The task, as it was unsolvable, remains. The Americans carried cargo for five months (five months, Karl!) To deploy 700 Air Force planes and 6 divisions. And despite the fact that they used 90% of the BTA + a bunch of requisitioned civil aircraft, 95% of the cargo was carried by sea :))) So the apocalypse you painted with neither VTOL nor VTOL is possible
          1. Spez
            Spez 18 December 2017 14: 09
            +1
            Do you think about it - where did the barmaley come from in quantities requiring 2 divisions? :))))) What do they eat there, what do they protect, where do the ammunition come from? According to the terms of the "task", they do not have VTOL.

            They have oil / gold / poppy fields there. They feed on mountain frogs from arid swamps, having a bite with the same poppy. And they dragged all their weapons and equipment to the same Americans, who, dropping all this on parachutes for five months, scattered their good (intentionally or accidentally) through the same jungle.
            By the way, our base in the same Syria was deployed in a matter of weeks, and solved the basic tasks of the presence of our troops in the region. But this is with runway and infrastructure. I don’t share the enthusiasm for the Americans, in general. They, too, did not throw themselves into nothing.
            And if you comply with the conditions of the problem that I drew, then to hell they would have generally stuck there.
            1. Andrei from Chelyabinsk
              Andrei from Chelyabinsk 18 December 2017 15: 06
              +1
              Quote: Spez
              They have oil / gold / poppy fields there. They feed on mountain frogs from arid swamps, having a bite with the same poppy. And they dragged all their weapons and equipment to the same Americans, who, dropping all this on parachutes for five months, scattered their good (intentionally or accidentally) through the same jungle.

              In this case, the city is "rented" first, from the aerodrome of which the same "shell" was dropped and then also dropped, but not the shell :)))) If you need ground forces, a few airborne forces are thrown out which make out the turntables. Mustache. On barmaley with hand weapons much more and do not
              1. Spez
                Spez 18 December 2017 15: 25
                +1
                On barmaley with hand weapons much more and do not

                So I wrote that one or two divisions. It was clear that they were not tank.
                There are problems with the turntables: low speed, limited ceiling, which is possible for a "manual" MANPADS. They’re not flying far ... The payload is, of course, higher than that of the Kharkiv, but lower than that of the F-35. So they and the turntables have different tasks. So it is necessary to coexist on the basis of both of them somehow;)
    2. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek 18 December 2017 23: 42
      0
      When we have everything and there are free forces and means, why not. And if the question is, there is a deficit of fighters of the 5th generation, and the enemy launched the conveyor, then you need to produce and design those types of fighters that are needed ...
      1. Spez
        Spez 19 December 2017 00: 20
        +2
        Neither here, nor among the Americans, frankly speaking, there is no fifth generation fighter, not 4 +++. Neither the Raptor, nor Lightning-2, nor Su-57 so far fully comply with the requirements that apply to this generation. So far, the key word. The potential is present. This can be understood if only because not one of these aircraft has completely declassified information. No records have been set for altitude, range, flight duration, etc. The fact that these aircraft fly already speaks of their prospects in relation to aircraft of previous developments. On these first swallows new solutions are worked out, compromises are sought, previously incompatible parameters and flight modes are combined. And just now, the parallel creation of an aircraft by GDP or UVP can cost several times less, because the test base is fresh, most of the pitfalls and dead ends are known.
        1. Zaurbek
          Zaurbek 19 December 2017 19: 16
          0
          And the F-35 and F-22, in any case, surpass the 4 ++ generation aircraft in the general set of functions, even if they have AFAR and new engines ... and now everything is going to ensure that NATO countries change the fleet very quickly aircraft, and their 4 ++ generation will pass at good prices to their vassals. And we will face them.
          1. Spez
            Spez 19 December 2017 23: 15
            +2
            Your opinion is based on something, and what do you mean by the term "common set of functions"?
            1. Zaurbek
              Zaurbek 20 December 2017 00: 29
              0
              There are specific requirements for the 5th generation:
              - universality: application on the earth and air
              - cruising supersonic
              stealth
              - standard hour
              -% of combat-ready aircraft.

              Translated into Russian, the 100 F-35 will solve problems for which you need 70 Su-35S and 70Su34 (do not find fault with the numbers) +% of combat-ready aircraft.
              1. Spez
                Spez 20 December 2017 01: 15
                +2
                in fact, there are more requirements, and the Americans do not meet all of them, in terms of universality, over-maneuverability.
                Translated into Russian, the 100 F-35 will solve problems for which you need 70 Su-35S and 70Su34 (do not find fault with the numbers) +% of combat-ready aircraft.

                And here there is a clear preponderance on the side of dryers, in% of combat-ready aircraft, for example, or in the number of weapons on board.
                PS By the way, cruising supersonic and supersonic without afterburner are somewhat not the same thing.
                1. Zaurbek
                  Zaurbek 20 December 2017 09: 53
                  0
                  In our country, these tasks are performed by Su / 35/30/34 ... the 5th generation will perform the tasks of breaking through air defense better ... i.e. With 10 F-35s, you do not need specialized aircraft and do not need to separately train pilots.
                  1. Spez
                    Spez 20 December 2017 10: 50
                    +2
                    Our dialogue with you began with the fact that we do not need VTOL, because it’s expensive, and it’s enough for us to finish something that already somehow flies towards the 5th knee, because the enemies are not sleeping. This is briefly. F-35 in one of the modifications is VTOL. Well, almost the same as for the fifth generation. By the way, I have doubts that his mission is to break through air defense, rather, it’s just a fighter supporting older machines, as well as covering ground or sea forces from the air, in fact, it is itself a means of air defense. And I dare to assure you that even those pilots who flew the F-22 had to be specially trained for it. Each machine has its own specifics, and the machine of each subsequent generation requires new skills and knowledge from the operator. And it will always be so, respectively, pilot training programs will be constantly improved.
                    Again, by the way ... VTOL aircraft have the opportunity to become those universal aircraft that will perform the functions of both air defense, attack aircraft, and reconnaissance, and maybe even strategists (than to drive the carcass through half a ball, you can use five or six vertical bars with TAKra for those raise money directly under the nose of the adversary). I hope that our VTOL aircraft will cease to be “doves of the world” and “defenders of the mast”, and will be able to deliver a payload of at least a quarter of its weight as intended.
                    1. Zaurbek
                      Zaurbek 20 December 2017 11: 06
                      0
                      Even the F-35V will not be able to equally compete with the same F-35A or 35C because of the worst aerobatic performance. And the cost of developing VTOL aircraft, taking into account their release (20-50-100 pieces), is very expensive. This money is better spent on a normal light medium fighter of the 5th generation in the regular and deck versions. And build a pair of normal aircraft carriers. And let UDC remain carriers of helicopters. And this is a lightweight fighter (full 5th generation) that is already being built in a large series ... of 1000 or more pieces with the maximum use of Su-57 technologies (systems, engine, etc.)
                      1. Spez
                        Spez 20 December 2017 11: 44
                        +2
                        The cost of developing a VTOL aircraft is comparable to the cost of developing a normal 5th generation medium fighter. The question is, why is it needed so normal right now? Look here: to develop a fighter, build a pair of aircraft carriers for it, bring the material and technical base for them, etc., etc. ... or one VTOL aircraft with modernization for its use of existing vessels. What will come faster and cheaper, taking into account the experience of building the same Su-57, Yak-141 (quite pulled by 4+) and its further modifications, which, unfortunately, remained only on paper?
                      2. Spez
                        Spez 20 December 2017 12: 11
                        +1
                        ADF. Regarding the worst aerobatic performance, and not only ... The F-35 was originally a UVP, and everything was calculated on stealth, so maneuverability was sacrificed.
    3. sa-ag
      sa-ag 22 December 2017 12: 53
      0
      Quote: Spez
      but on land in the near future can not do.

      On land, it’s just that VTOL is not needed, it’s neither a ground attack aircraft nor a fighter, it’s a separate species, oh, it’s counter-guerrilla :-) But for this it’s easier to raise an unmanned topic
      1. Spez
        Spez 22 December 2017 14: 00
        +1
        Let's wait and see)
  14. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh 18 December 2017 11: 02
    +2
    "The F-35B fighter-bomber shows that a modern aircraft of this class,
    without losing in flight performance, capable of carrying weapons weighing several tons,
    develop supersonic speed and solve combat missions at ranges of hundreds of kilometers "/////


    Wow! What an unexpected revelation. belay
    And here at VO everyone is sure that the F-35B is an absolute failure: it does not take off, does not raise weapons,
    does not develop supersonic, and flies not far ... smile
    1. sivuch
      sivuch 18 December 2017 15: 31
      +2
      Actually, losing. You just need to compare not with the aircraft of previous generations, but at least with 35A.
      At least because of the unification with the vertical 35A also lost.
      The question, as always, is whether the game is worth the candle for this particular country.
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh 18 December 2017 16: 25
        0
        You see, countries hostile to us, like Iran, do not stand still in development.
        They not only learned how to make more accurate ballistic missiles, but
        and began to equip them with modern GOS.
        And someday such a missile must crash at our airfield.
        Something will hit the missile defense, of course, but something will break through. Sealed air defense no.
        And then - oops! - remember the verticals F-35 and the spots they need for
        start / landing. (As after (and not BEFORE, unfortunately) the Lebanon war, 2016 became urgent
        rivet Trophy on each tank and armored personnel carrier).
        And all the arguments: "more kerosene consumption, less radius", etc., seem ridiculous excuses when the remains of aircraft burn at the airfield. sad
        1. sivuch
          sivuch 18 December 2017 16: 35
          +3
          The fact of the matter is that much more is needed than a patch - the infrastructure is needed at each such mini-aerodrome. So, rather, it will be easier and cheaper to repair a regular airfield.
  15. Alexey-74
    Alexey-74 18 December 2017 11: 29
    0
    So far, we don’t have aircraft carriers, well, except for Kuznetsov, who and where will we land, even with vertical take-off? All for the future, but then in general it makes sense to raise this topic?
  16. Taoist
    Taoist 18 December 2017 11: 46
    +2
    Who wrote this nonsense?
    "The Yak-38 was equipped with two lift-propulsion engines and one that was used only for vertical take-off and landing." (with)

    Everything is exactly the opposite. 1 PMD (P27В300) and two PD
  17. Taoist
    Taoist 18 December 2017 11: 59
    +3
    It is necessary to be engaged in "verticals". Tactical flexibility and the possibility of a non-aerodrome launch and landing - it is certainly worth paying for with a certain reduction in performance characteristics. And to be honest, it seems to me that the TAKR options are much better to lay on the tasks of our Navy than the creation and use of conventional aircraft carriers.
    1. Per se.
      Per se. 18 December 2017 13: 07
      0
      Quote: Taoist
      "Vertikalkam" need to do.
      It is necessary, and not linking everything with only one perspective under the aircraft carrier.
    2. bk0010
      bk0010 18 December 2017 13: 37
      0
      It’s necessary to deal with (what if it works out). It is not necessary to send troops to the military until reliability is ensured and the technical specifications are completed. And you also need to stop trying to build supersonic and heavy (in TK write 10 tons, if they fit in 12 - good) vertical lines (with vertical take-off to supersonic, they still will not have fuel, but with normal, with a run, vertical lines are not needed). And be sure to support guided weapons (no longer do without radar).
      1. Taoist
        Taoist 18 December 2017 16: 31
        0
        You are wrong ... the main method of application for these machines is WRC - and here they do not lose much in efficiency. The question is not how much take-off - how much landing actually.
  18. Krasnyiy komissar
    Krasnyiy komissar 18 December 2017 13: 12
    +1
    They did the right thing that they left the SVPP. These aircraft are difficult to fly, have a high accident rate and are inferior in all respects to conventional fighters. Modern fighters can take off from fairly short runways with powerful engines on board. For the Su-57, 350 m of paved road is enough to take off.
    1. Spez
      Spez 18 December 2017 13: 36
      +2
      And how many of them can take off from these 350 meters at the same time? And how much does the Su-57 need to land normally without an aerofinisher, but only with a parachute? Almost 700m.
      The issue of accident rate and complexity is successfully resolved by introducing new control systems and bringing existing promising structural elements and software. On the same Su-35/57, the thrust vector control system is many times more complicated than what was on the Yak-38/41 for stabilization with GDP. Technique does not get easier. Moreover, each subsequent generation of hers comes close to the moment the physical body of a person is taken out of the device’s dimensions, i.e. progress is being made towards the creation of remotely piloted aircraft and other types of equipment. And this is done not only because of the fear of losing the pilot in an accident, but primarily to increase the capabilities of aircraft, bringing them to modes that are beyond the physical and mental capabilities of the human body.
      1. Taoist
        Taoist 18 December 2017 16: 34
        +1
        By the way, they don’t think about it ... the main thing is not take off, the main landing ... And by the way, drones now also increasingly gravitate to the SCVP scheme. It’s even easier there.
        1. Spez
          Spez 18 December 2017 22: 07
          +1
          About that and speech. You can take off from a springboard, or from a catapult with accelerators, but for some reason everyone prefers to land in a natural way. And in the case of restrictions on the site, the ability to do this in a helicopter is very handy.
      2. Krasnyiy komissar
        Krasnyiy komissar 18 December 2017 20: 39
        +1
        SVPP will never be able to compete on equal terms with enemy aircraft in the BVB, because its aerodynamics and thrust-to-weight ratio do not reach the requirements of the 5th generation. The American "penguin" merges air combat to the planes of the previous generation, and only at long distances gets the advantage due to the powerful avionics. It’s better to spend the money that you want to spend on the domestic analogue of the penguin on the construction of paved roads so that you can work with them in case of war. The fifth-generation SVPP fighter project will cost tens of billions of greenery, and its production in the right quantities will cost even more.
        1. Spez
          Spez 18 December 2017 21: 59
          +2
          And “Ruslan” can never make a dead loop.
          F-35 is actually a big breakthrough, not only in the budget. If for a second you forget about the 5th generation and other marketing slogans, then in the bottom line we get, albeit still crude, but quite flying and performing combat missions. According to those publications, even negative ones that are on the network, we can conclude that it is already far superior to all previously developed and flying VTOL aircraft in the vast majority of characteristics.
          The fact that the 35th does not draw on the fifth generation, that it is too expensive to develop and operate, is not an argument not to try to do better and cheaper. Already there are some developments on the topic, we know how to not do it, there is an understanding of how it should be ideally. It remains to find the money and assemble a qualified team to implement the concept on the basis of existing technologies to the specific requirements of the customer.
    2. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 19 December 2017 00: 50
      0
      "These aircraft are difficult to fly, have a high accident rate and are inferior in all respects to conventional fighters" ////

      Only the third of your arguments is true.
      The take-off / landing control of the F-35B is fully automatic - the pilot does not intervene.
      No accident.
      But some performance characteristics are inferior: increased fuel consumption on take-off / landing, less radius of action. Smaller bomb stock.
      1. Krasnyiy komissar
        Krasnyiy komissar 19 December 2017 01: 47
        +1
        F-35B does not fly so long to talk about its reliability, and the aircraft of this modification are the least released. It has a weak spot - a lifting fan behind the cockpit, which is connected by a shaft to a single engine. Damage to the fan or twisting of the shaft during take-off or landing is guaranteed to lead to disaster, often with the death of the pilot. Such aircraft must have an automatic ejection system in case of equipment failure or pilot error at low altitude.
  19. Spez
    Spez 18 December 2017 14: 17
    +2
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    For your opponents? Quite.

    And what? By the fact that I remove from the logistics chain the delivery of goods from a port or an aerodrome capable of receiving BTA aircraft. and unload them as close to the place of use as possible? What do I get the airfield for the wing of attack aircraft and support fighters on a patch of a couple of football fields. and I don’t need to build a full concrete, is it enough to cover the soil with sheet metal? I do not understand, explain.
    1. EvilLion
      EvilLion 18 December 2017 15: 44
      0
      Do you understand that aviation cannot compare with water transport? Its capabilities in this regard are scanty, and in Syria it was very clearly manifested that everything that could carry goods went to work on the "Syrian express".
      1. Spez
        Spez 18 December 2017 16: 06
        +1
        water transport can deliver cargo only to the coast, and then, not always. And then aviation is just what is needed.
        1. EvilLion
          EvilLion 18 December 2017 16: 52
          0
          Not aviation, but trucks.
          1. Spez
            Spez 18 December 2017 22: 00
            +1
            how will we deliver the trucks, if it is impossible to land directly on the equipped pier with loyal natives?
  20. Anyone
    Anyone 18 December 2017 14: 26
    +1
    One of the prototype Yak-36 aircraft ...

    Even looking at this photo from Monino, you can see that the exhibits in the Aviation Museum are in a completely disrepair. How long will they still last with such an attitude and such a level of funding and organization of the museum?
  21. Taoist
    Taoist 18 December 2017 16: 22
    +2
    Quote: Andrey from Chelyabinsk
    Look. I do not see VTOL, Khuchubey :)))

    Of course, I wildly apologize, but maybe this does not speak about VTOL problems, but about vision problems?
    Andrei, I certainly respect your calculations, but here you’ll say so swimming ... By the way, about the "decentralization" of the infrastructure you were quite adequately noted ... Moreover, there are some developments - it’s not long to use. And warehouses are still easier to disguise and protect than kilometer runways.
  22. fa2998
    fa2998 18 December 2017 17: 00
    0
    Quote: Taoist
    Do not bring nonsense ... 38y was not inferior to Harrier in any way if you compare the comparable ... Harrier was ahead of him except in the number of disasters.

    Do not write nonsense! Harrier had 1 engine, and 38 -141 flew with dead weight, lifting engines. What is the carrying capacity and range? Swirl around the ship, show the adversaries that we have an aviation deck. lol hi
    1. Taoist
      Taoist 18 December 2017 17: 22
      +4
      Who is talking nonsense with us? Do you actually know how both planes are arranged? And due to what both schemes are implemented. For reference: this is my specialization and I not only read about them on the internet ...
      Harrier's weight return is lower, the diameter of the fesulage (and aerodynamic drag) is much larger due to the scheme used. And the restriction on the vertical component of the thrust generally makes its vertical take-off with full combat load impossible. When flying "on a full profile, it has a LESS fighting radius. Harrier’s engine is a technological dead end - it basically doesn’t allow you to reach supersonic sound. That’s why for perspective VTOL aircraft, a scheme with a lifting impeller (and we have with lifting engines) was chosen - because this scheme lighter and easier to manage and has lower specific fuel consumption.
      1. sd68
        sd68 19 December 2017 15: 38
        0
        dead end is a scheme with lifting engines, like the Yak - 38 or Yak-141
        1. Taoist
          Taoist 19 December 2017 17: 17
          +1
          Less aplomb, more knowledge.
          1. sd68
            sd68 19 December 2017 17: 41
            0
            which I also wish you.
            essentially have something to write?
            1. Taoist
              Taoist 19 December 2017 17: 56
              +2
              In fact, I have repeatedly stated. Unlike you, my knowledge of the subject is not from the network. And if you don’t see that the scheme with a lifting fan is similar to the scheme with a PD and the Harrier scheme does not allow to increase the characteristics of machines, this only speaks of the level of your basic knowledge in aero and gas dynamics. Well, I was not hired to teach you. Learn the materiel - come.
              1. sd68
                sd68 19 December 2017 18: 48
                0
                for sure, and the boys from Rolls-Royce, who developed in embodying that the engine for the only one confirming the success of the VTOL aircraft (and at the same time the same rotary nozzle of the RB.153-61 engine, causing so much friction in the runet) and Lockheed Martin are also not aware of aerodynamics and engine building.
                Aircraft designer Yakovlev also did not understand these issues.
                But you are in the know and are able to explain to everyone that there is no difference between a stream of compressed air and a stream of hot gases ...
                PS but he worked at the aircraft engine factory in the 90s, and served as an urgent in the Air Force, and then what, am I an expert in all matters of aviation?
                1. Taoist
                  Taoist 19 December 2017 20: 01
                  +1
                  And you didn’t notice that I didn’t say a word about “boys from Rolls-Royce” and just like about Yakovlev ... Well, you yourself admitted that there is not enough education, that's why you see the fundamental difference where it is in general, it’s not ... and you don’t see where it is.
                  You are definitely not a specialist and I will not say that I am a specialist "in all matters of aviation" - but the fact that I have special knowledge specifically on VTOL and I studied not only the practice of operation but also the corresponding theory. This is an absolute fact. And you won’t get this knowledge by reading Wikipedia ...
                  By the way, the history of the issue can also be simply read, but you can understand what why and why it happened exactly the same way (for this, the same knowledge is needed).
                  1. sd68
                    sd68 19 December 2017 20: 29
                    0
                    namely, that they did not write about Yakovlev and the boys from Rolls-Royce - you pretend that they simply do not exist.
                    on the other hand, all your objections to my post came down to the fact that there is no difference between a stream of hot gases and compressed air.
                    in fact, I did not see anything else in your posts, only stories about what kind of super-specialist you are and what kind of an ignoramus I am.
                    I understand why Yakovlev was right, but it seems that you don’t understand if you don’t understand why no one needs the Yak-38 and 141 ....
                    And Harrier is needed ...
                    1. Taoist
                      Taoist 19 December 2017 23: 25
                      +1
                      To prove something to you, I have to start from the very beginning, from the basics. And that is not a fact that it will turn out precisely because you are an ignoramus - you have picked up the top from an Internet. Do I need it? Yakovlev was in many ways both right and exactly as wrong ... like any other constructor. By the way, I don’t pretend that they weren’t ... but I know the whole history of the developments and you don’t ... And I know how the attempts to make supersonic Pegasus ended. And how much time and effort has been spent both in our country and abroad for this task ... And why in the end did the same US go our own way and not the British way (although the Harriers had used it before) ... In general, remain stupid if you don’t want to learn anything seriously ...
                      1. Zaurbek
                        Zaurbek 20 December 2017 10: 07
                        0
                        The English scheme had one indisputable advantage - there was no excess weight in the form of a fan or lifting engines and at the same time there was a mixture of cold jets (from the front nozzles) and hot (from the rear), which saved the deck cover. But with the transition to supersonic speeds and a large mass and power, the system proved to be inapplicable. So back to the separate lifting device ...
  23. sd68
    sd68 19 December 2017 15: 37
    +1
    A good idea.
    Obviously, the use of conventional aircraft without a catapult is a dead end branch, suitable only for window dressing.
    To build a full-fledged aircraft carrier according to the Nimitz type and, moreover, to maintain it, there is only money for this, except for the Americans, and this is due to the fact that they have experience, infrastructure and proven technologies.
    But on the basis of the VTOL type of some Spanish Juan Carlos, is another matter. The price of both construction and maintenance falls at times, technologically much easier.
    Modern VTOL aircraft (read F-35, there are simply no others) are slightly different in characteristics from the usual, slightly more expensive, but this more than pays for the cost of the aircraft carrier and its contents.
    neither catapults nor finishes are needed, the crew is reduced, versatility appears - what is needed in the modern world.
    Only now whether the creation will be pulled is another question. In the world of VTOL aircraft development there were many, Americans, English, Germans, French - many developed) but only Harrier and F-35 turned out to be really suitable.
    After the furor that Harrier made, Yakovlev himself so categorically argued that the VTOL should only be single-engine, that the decision to develop the Yak-36 (38) was dragged behind him.
    Life has shown that the famous aircraft designer was completely right-built according to the scheme with one PMD and two Yak-38 PDs, had irreparable flaws - the ingress of gases from the PD into the PMD air intakes led to unstable thrust (and, accordingly, vertical speed, as well as problems with roll and pitch ) on take-off and landing, there were cases of non-inclusion of PD during landing, skew in the thrust, it was difficult to shorten take-off, PD created a stream of gases between the deck and the fuselage, etc., for which the Yak-38 was contemptuous.
    When the decision was made to create the Yak-41, it was originally a single-engine scheme that was written down in the task, but it did not work out, the task was redone, and the Yak 141 was ripped off the old American project Conveyor model 200, including the main fetish of runet patriots:) - rotary nozzle.
    The obtained version had all the shortcomings of the Yak-38, it was also unsuitable for use, not only combat pilots, but even test pilots with difficulty flying, which led to the closure of the program.
    For a short time, there was hope that the Americans would help him to his mind, but when they saw the “newest” Yak-141, practically repeating the General Dynamics Convair Model 200 - an American project of the 60s of the last century, they abandoned this project and began developing F -35V.
    And the question is, will the Yakovlevites succeed at least the third time?
    1. Taoist
      Taoist 19 December 2017 17: 19
      +3
      You wrote rare ravings. It is especially “fun” to hear this when he himself took part in all these events.
      1. sd68
        sd68 19 December 2017 17: 40
        0
        in which?
        designed Yaki? or Conveyors?
        “On March 4, 1976, a military test pilot, Hero of the Soviet Union, Colonel V. Khomyakov was to perform an acceptance flight on a serial Yak-38 from a factory airfield. During transition, while turning the PMD nozzle, the pilot was unexpectedly ejected in the horizontal position of the aircraft at an altitude of about 70 m. He landed on a parachute near the take-off place and became, so to speak, interested in, and where, in fact, his plane.

        Meanwhile, the aircraft continued to fly with autopilot, gaining altitude in transition mode .... "
        and in your version he sat down, however ....
        1. Taoist
          Taoist 19 December 2017 17: 50
          +3
          I did not design, I served them, and since it was our regiment that was the leader, I personally took part in the trials and in the course of all the cases that you describe “by hearsay”.
          the case that you bring was in Saratov during an airplane flight from the factory. The case I mentioned was with us, in Saki and much later. Or do you think that everything got on the Internet? do not be mistaken - then there was no Internet and the privacy regime was respected. (by the way, in the case you described, the plane also landed safely in the end - this was the only case of unauthorized operation of the SC-EM).
          1. sd68
            sd68 19 December 2017 18: 40
            0
            yeah. and in 1976 the Internet, of course, was already .... and no secrecy
            in fact, what I write was written just by people "firsthand".
            and most importantly, reality: Harrier is still in operation, and the Yak-38 has long been written off and forgotten.
            Yak-141 was even taken into service, defeated during landing and forgotten.
            1. svp67
              svp67 19 December 2017 19: 05
              0
              Quote: sd68
              Yak-141 was even taken into service, defeated during landing and forgotten.



            2. Taoist
              Taoist 19 December 2017 20: 05
              +2
              Why Harrier is still in service and the Yak "wrote off and forgotten" has nothing to do with technology. You know this no worse than me. If Misha and Co. hadn’t leaked the Union into the toilet, then it’s not known who would have been “sucked” now. But the operating time in those days was not badly traded ... Now it turns out that the F-35 is super and Yak sucks ... You are also confusing the reasons with the consequences ...
              1. sd68
                sd68 19 December 2017 20: 34
                0
                yeah, they didn’t merge the Su-27, and even the 29th moment, and the Yak-38 was merged with 141, although these planes were super-super-unique, not like some Harrier.
                but stubbornly continue to replicate the mossy myth about how the allegedly failed 141 Americans copied in the form of the F-35. Is your eyesight good? Have you seen photos of both? Do you understand the differences between a stream of hot gases and compressed air?
                1. Spez
                  Spez 19 December 2017 23: 30
                  +2

                  mixed in a bunch, horses, people ... Fatty troll. boring.
                  1. sd68
                    sd68 20 December 2017 09: 25
                    0
                    not stuck there, it would be just right for Taoist
                2. Taoist
                  Taoist 19 December 2017 23: 35
                  +1
                  Are you at all? Or partially? Do you even know when and why the 38x regiments were disbanded? And where and when were their carriers written off?
                  And about the "jet" ... you tired me ... Once again for those who are on an armored train. From the point of view of gas dynamics, there is no difference - both of these are a stream of gases that can have different temperatures and speeds. The lower the temperature / speed, the lower the thrust — to compensate for the drop in thrust, it is necessary to increase the mass air flow rate — which increases the diameter of the gas-air duct. + loss in the drive. There are no miracles, you have to pay for everything.
                  1. sd68
                    sd68 20 December 2017 09: 25
                    0
                    well enough already to carry nonsense.
                    in addition to gas dynamics in physics, there are other sections plus chemistry.
                    read about how a jet of hot gases differs in temperature and composition from a jet of cold air and be aware of what nonsense you write.
                    1. maximghost
                      maximghost 20 December 2017 13: 46
                      +1
                      But do you even begin to argue in the context of what? Mb for the subject of the dispute, the difference between a stream of hot gases and a stream of air is not important, and this difference can be neglected.
                      1. sd68
                        sd68 20 December 2017 14: 57
                        0
                        Of course, it is important, as I wrote above.
                        for example, hot gases enter the air intake, which leads to unstable PMD operation at low altitudes.
                        one of the key shortcomings of airplanes of such a scheme is that model 200, that Mirage, that Yaki.
                        A jet of compressed air does not create such a problem.
                      2. maximghost
                        maximghost 20 December 2017 16: 06
                        +1
                        But what’s the point, even if hot gases do not enter the air intakes, such an engine gives less thrust than alternative combinations of several engines. In addition, it also has other disadvantages (for example, a large cross section).
                3. Dalailama
                  Dalailama 24 December 2017 17: 00
                  0
                  Quote: sd68
                  yeah, the Su-27 wasn’t leaked, and even the moment 29,

                  They tried as if you did not know about it. Then they worsened as much as they could.
                  Previously, Khrushchev generally tried all the lime aircraft.
    2. bk0010
      bk0010 20 December 2017 01: 06
      0
      Quote: sd68
      But on the basis of the VTOL type of some Spanish Juan Carlos, is another matter.
      Well, yes, and you will also have an AWACS aircraft of vertical take-off, and the VTOL problems will be solved by the VTOL aircraft. And without AWACS, your fighter control will be limited by the radio horizon of the carrier (about 150 km, EMNIP), that is, even the most urgent task for us - providing air defense missile systems can not effectively solve a pre-aircraft carrier. But in the presence of a normal aircraft carrier, such a ship will almost double its capabilities.
      1. sd68
        sd68 20 December 2017 09: 23
        0
        This is problem.
        in principle, it can be solved by using AWACS based on the Osprey, there was something about the interest of the British and Indians in such a machine, it has calmed down only recently, but it is clear that they will not sell it to Russia in any case.
        the way out, in my opinion, is only in an ersatz-pair RTR drone + AWACS helicopter according to the principle of the American Lamp 3 - on the helicopter and the drone only antennas and primary processing, then the signal is transmitted to the ship and thereafter.
        The helicopter rises with a direct threat, drones are on duty constantly in the menacing period.
        1. maximghost
          maximghost 20 December 2017 13: 44
          +1
          That was all already. Including ours. As early as 70 ka-25Ts could transmit data to the ship in real time. True, he served for the target designation of the RCC, but he could also see air targets, albeit poorly. Then there was the Ka-32. The British also had their own AWACS helicopter, though it appeared after the Falklands, i.e. late.
          1. sd68
            sd68 20 December 2017 15: 05
            0
            It was, but not like that.
            A helicopter for the purpose of AWACS can be used very limitedly, that of the British, that of anyone.
            in order to get around the problem, I suggest a preliminary review to be carried out by the RTR drone, and the helicopter will take off according to its data if necessary, in this mode it is able to perform the functions of AWACS.
            in order to improve the quality of work and reduce the cost of flight, only antennas and signal processing tools remain on the aircraft, the RTR and radar stations themselves will be located on the ship, as was done for the Aegis Lamp 3 system.
            1. maximghost
              maximghost 20 December 2017 15: 57
              +1
              And what's the point in a helicopter then? If they cut the channel of communication with the ship - try to control the fighters with at least a voice?
        2. bk0010
          bk0010 20 December 2017 23: 27
          0
          A DRLO helicopter is bad for several reasons: 1) the flight altitude is small - the radio horizon can limit the capabilities of the equipment 2) the radius of action, speed and patrol time are small - it will not be possible to advance far in the threatened direction, the flight time of the patrol area is long 3) there is no room for the aviation control crew (you can try to broadcast the radar data to the ship, the crew can place it there) 4) the fuel is eating more intensively, replenishment during the campaign can be problematic 5) there are also problems with the energy and carrying capacity (I still remember how happy they were that they were not able to put the A-100 equipment in in Ruslan, but in Il): the radar's capabilities are not a fountain.
  24. sd68
    sd68 20 December 2017 09: 26
    0
    Quote: Taoist
    Yakovlev was in many ways both right and just as wrong ..

    Enough already bustle like in a pan, there is something to write, write ...
    1. Taoist
      Taoist 20 December 2017 09: 41
      +3
      There is ... you and *** and the troll. Dance on to one.
      1. sd68
        sd68 20 December 2017 10: 10
        0
        what, there’s nothing to answer ...? Oh well...
  25. sd68
    sd68 20 December 2017 10: 05
    0
    the average Runet reader may have the impression that, apart from Harrier, Yak-38, Yak 141 and F-35, there were simply no other VTOL aircraft — the volumes of information are so disproportionate.
    Moreover, in Runet there simply formed a sect of some kind of “Witnesses Yak-141”, confident that the Americans copied it in the form of F-35.
    Recently, however, it has been slightly neglected, and some, seeing the obvious stupidity of this statement, began to write that they only copied a node deflecting the thrust vector in PMD.
    all this is very far from reality.
    There were dozens of VTOL projects — Americans, Germans, British, Italians, Danes — many since the 60s have been doing this, building structures of varying degrees of readiness according to various schemes, none of which were suitable for actual use.
    were also developed according to the scheme used in the Yak-38 and Yak -141, in which the rear part of the aircraft was lifted by PMD with a deflected thrust vector, and the front one with the help of several reactive PDs that were switched off after take-off.
    for example, the same American Model 200 Conveyor, or the French supersonic Mirage IIIV (V) from Dassault from the 60s implemented in prototypes yet, with a maximum speed of more than 2M.
    These developments have shown the unsuitability of such a scheme: hot gases from the PD entering the PMD air intakes and into the narrow space between the aircraft bottom and deck, instability of traction on the lift and landing, instability of the pitch control due to fluctuations in engine speed, and the need to start the PD during landing and others.
    The problem was well understood even then and tried to get around - in the German supersonic EWR VJ 101 the lift-march was located on the wing consoles, this did not solve the problem.
    The British managed to solve the problem - their Harrier had a fundamental difference in that the lifting thrust in the front of the aircraft was created not by hot gases, but by a stream of compressed air, and the engine was one, which eliminated unstable thrust and the need to start the engines in the air.
    it is on the same principle that the F-35 is built - the front of the aircraft will rise in a stream of air, and there will also be one engine.
    The Yak-38 and Yak-141 are built according to a completely different scheme, according to the model 200 and Mirage 3 scheme, with all their shortcomings.
    Yakovlev himself perfectly understood that the scheme was inoperative.
    ".... Yakovlev insisted on creating an airplane with one lift-marching engine. Perhaps, therefore, when he became aware that a group of his employees was proactively working on the look of the VTOL aircraft with a combined power plant, he forbade OKB specialists from participating in this work .

    The “disgraced” group was headed by the deputy chief designer S. G. Mordovin, proceeding from the fact that the USSR, which was suitable for use as a single power unit of VTOL aircraft, was not even in development, and it would take ten to fifteen years to create it. Therefore, together with the leading engineer O.A. Sidorov, in the early summer of 1967 he began the preliminary design of a new combat VTOL aircraft with a power plant of two lifting engines (PM) and one lifting and marching engine (PMD) .... "
    So there is no need to pass off need as virtue.
    The viciousness and futility of such a scheme was obvious, therefore, when creating the Yak-41, it was initially unambiguously indicated in the task that the aircraft should have only one engine. The assignment was rewritten only when it became obvious that the Yakovlev Design Bureau could not create a VTOL aircraft with a single-engine design — the result was a Yak-141 in the same vicious scheme as the Yak-38, which had all its fundamental flaws — which led to a complete the closure of the project and the lack of interest in anyone to produce such an aircraft.
    As for the design of the same nozzle, which the Americans allegedly copied, Lockheed-Martin representatives have long stated that the development was based on the Model 200 project.
    The nozzle of this type itself, by the way, was realized long ago in metal on a working engine by Rolls-Royce specialists in an RB.153-61 engine
    1. Spez
      Spez 20 December 2017 13: 09
      +2
      A ringing is heard, but I don’t know where it is ... Rolls-Royce, not Dornier developed a nozzle, and 12 world records set by the vicious Yak-141, caused the closure of the project ... Brilliant!
      You have been misled. In fact, it all started back in the year 48, when the Americans deciphered the request of the aliens who landed in Roswell. The engine broke down, so I had to ask to make a new one according to their drawings. Then our mole in the Pentagon managed to transfer some of the drawings to Moscow, but the aircraft designers messed up something or decided to cut the dough, and instead of one dvig, they added three, hence all the problems ...
      1. sd68
        sd68 20 December 2017 15: 07
        0
        some nonsense.
        Is it bad with a Russian? learn and read above .....
    2. maximghost
      maximghost 20 December 2017 14: 18
      +3
      Harrier, Yak-38, Yak 141 and F-35 there were simply no other VTOL aircraft

      If you remove the Yak-141 from this company and add the word serial - then yes, there wasn’t. In addition, only the Yak-141 was able to fly vertically and gain supersonic.

      were also developed according to the scheme used in the Yak-38 and Yak -141, in which the rear part of the aircraft was lifted by PMD with a deflected thrust vector, and the front one with the help of several reactive PDs that were switched off after take-off.

      Yes? Are these for example? Well, except for the examples already given, since they can’t stand the critics - see below.
      Only the German VJ-101C can be attracted here, but the differences are there, so to speak, on the face.

      for example the same American Conveyor model 200

      Was he in metal?

      60s French Supersonic Mirage IIIV (V) from Dassault

      There are 8 lifting engines grouped by 4 symmetrically the center of gravity of the aircraft + one marching engine, which could create only horizontal thrust.

      The nozzle of this type itself, by the way, was realized long ago in metal on a working engine by Rolls-Royce specialists in an RB.153-61 engine

      What, with an afterburner? Come on proofs.

      These developments have shown the unsuitability of such a scheme: hot gases from the PD entering the PMD air intakes and into the narrow space between the aircraft bottom and deck, instability of traction on the lift and landing, instability of the pitch control due to fluctuations in engine speed, and the need to start the PD during landing and others.

      Yes? That is precisely why the Yankees apparently located the engine and fan by analogy with the Yakovlev machines? Yes, the fan seemed promising, but it’s bigger in size and weight than 2 lifting motors, it has a complex drive and has problems in itself, it absorbs power from the main (single) engine, and it also produces less than 2 lifting motors 141. So while you write garbage here, but with what aplomb.
      1. sd68
        sd68 20 December 2017 15: 12
        0
        Quote: maximghost
        If you remove the Yak-141 from this company and add the word serial

        and if you don’t remove or add, it will be what I wrote
        Quote: maximghost
        Yes? Are these for example?

        it also says what and how ...
        campaign, you also have problems with the Russian, or what?
        or are you also from this "witness sect 141"?
        two fundamentally different schemes, with PD and single-engine.
        1. maximghost
          maximghost 20 December 2017 15: 54
          +2
          and if you don’t remove or add, it will be what I wrote

          If you do not remove and do not add, then even the Yak-141 was not. Projects and prototypes of varying degrees of completion are not taken into account.
          campaign, you also have problems with the Russian, or what?

          It looks like you have. I examined the examples you provided. Make me lazy:
          were also developed according to the scheme used in the Yak-38 and Yak -141, in which the rear part of the aircraft was lifted by PMD with a deflected thrust vector, and the front one with the help of several reactive PDs that were switched off after take-off.
          for example, the same American Model 200 Conveyor, or the French supersonic Mirage IIIV (V) from Dassault from the 60s implemented in prototypes yet, with a maximum speed of more than 2M.

          The mirage had 8 lifting engines grouped in 4 symmetrical centers of gravity of the aircraft + one marching engine, which could create only horizontal thrust.
          Forget about the model conveyor - it was not even built as a prototype. What would come of it is unknown. He has only calculated LTH, so giving him an example is not correct.
          1. sd68
            sd68 20 December 2017 23: 29
            0
            but it is well known that came out of the Yak-38 and the Yak-141-full zilch.
            "A proud Yak flies in the sky, a Yak on the deck ... a blight"
            as well as nothing came out of the Mirage, according to the same scheme built.
            that is why the Americans did not begin to apply the scheme with PD, meaning, if the scheme is a failure?
            in fact, in the USSR they would refuse it if they could, as you already know
            1. maximghost
              maximghost 21 December 2017 00: 59
              +2
              but it is well known that came out of the Yak-38 and the Yak-141-full zilch.
              "A proud Yak flies in the sky, a Yak on the deck ... a blight"

              Well, you found a couple of Internet tales about which yak is bad (it really is far from the most outstanding aircraft of its time). The same can be found about the F-104 and even about the Mi-24.
              as well as nothing came out of the Mirage, according to the same scheme built

              Yes, not the same, 2 times already wrote about it. It’s very convenient - you call different schemes the same, and similar ones - fundamentally different, and opa - theory converges.

              that is why the Americans did not begin to apply the scheme with PD, meaning, if the scheme is a failure?

              And they took the Yakovlev engine layout, replacing the PD with a fan, and bought documentation for the Yakovlevites. Moreover, they abandoned their rotary nozzle of rectangular cross section in favor of a round one.

              in fact, in the USSR they would refuse it if they could, as you already know

              Who would refuse it? Well, you found some long-standing dispute between Yakovlev and his deputy, also embellished by journalists. There was no alternative to the three-engine scheme then. All thoughts on the fan’s account are conceptual designs, but still not really worked out. To develop an engine similar to Pegasus is long, expensive and there will be problems with supersonic.
              At the harrier, they were able to go beyond the sound barrier only on experimental samples and with great difficulty. 38 yaki even serial could go to a small supersonic. Initially, they were supposed to be supersonic, but due to the fact that they did not conduct enough tests of models, they missed errors in aerodynamics and failed.
              1. Zaurbek
                Zaurbek 22 December 2017 09: 30
                0
                Of all this, Harrier was built in large numbers and was in service with more than one country ... and had at least three versions or four. And he lived a long life. And no one else from VTOL!
                1. maximghost
                  maximghost 22 December 2017 22: 14
                  +2
                  M ... There are only 3 serial VTOL aircraft - Harrier, Yak-38 and F-35, despite the fact that the last year is weekless, and the second one left with the country a manufacturer of half the fleet of the same country. The first one became an airplane for countries that really want an aircraft carrier, but at the same time they have very little money. The result - very few representatives, a lot of nuances.
                  1. bk0010
                    bk0010 23 December 2017 15: 35
                    0
                    Harrier - the main aircraft of the U.S. ILC. Is the US a little aircraft carriers? Just the ILC is trying to show off so that it is not like that of the land explorers. What happened to Harrier cost them a lot of blood (a third of the planes crashed).
                    1. maximghost
                      maximghost 23 December 2017 18: 22
                      +1
                      Well yo. In addition to the ILC, the harrier still has many where and who was in service.
                      In the 80-90s, in addition to the United States, France, the USSR, Argentina and Brazil (and not all at the same time), there were ships capable of receiving ordinary deck aircraft. Only the USSR (in the last year of its existence) and the United States simultaneously possessed ships for receiving regular decks and ships for receiving VTOL aircraft; And besides them, light aircraft carriers for receiving VTOL were in England, Italy, Spain, Thailand, India. And another five countries had UDC on which VTOL could be planted. That's what I wrote about them. Moreover, in the United States, the ILC was in a similar situation. They (KMP) had UDCs, which are larger than some classic aircraft carriers, while, in addition to the harrier, only light attack aircraft with a couple of bunks could take off and land on them. It would be foolish not to use the harrier.
              2. sd68
                sd68 29 December 2017 12: 02
                0
                if you are not a sectarian, please provide a serious source confirming that
                they took the Yakovlev engine layout, replacing the PD with a fan, and bought the Yakovlev documentation. .

                Lockheed Martin refutes this, there is a well-known article in the corporate magazine on this subject and other statements with a rather detailed account of where and how, Yakovlev never made such statements, OJSC Soyuz AMNTK did not have such statements either.
                I look forward to references to the source of such approval, if you are not a sectarian.
                As for the Mirage and the Yak-141, their layout is identical, the engines 2 in one case, or 8 in the second, stood in one block.
                And by itself, the model 200 - there was a circuit identical to the Yak-141, only its fallacy was understood at the design stage, and the project was cut down.
                1. maximghost
                  maximghost 29 December 2017 15: 52
                  +1

                  Here is the Mirage diagram. There are 8 PDs blocked in 4 pieces and the first marching engine.

                  A jamb with a mirage is not your only factual mistake, but to shovel the whole topic so that I could find them corny.

                  take-off 8 turbojet engines Rolls-Royce RB.162
                  Marching 1 turbofan SNECMA TF-30
                  Thrust take-off, kN 8 x 15.69
                  March thrust, kN
                  unformed 1 x 50.50
                  forced 1 x 82.37

                  Lockheed Martin refutes this,

                  What exactly do they refute?

                  And by itself, the model 200 - there was a circuit identical to the Yak-141, only its fallacy was understood at the design stage, and the project was cut down.

                  Why the scheme is not identical - I already wrote and even brought a picture.
                  Why did they hack her - 9 engines !!! 3 engines are no longer a gift, but here 9 !!!.

                  By the way, if it’s interesting, there was a fact of an emergency landing of the Yak-38 on the deck with 1 working PD. The plane was then restored.
                  Regarding the possibility of the circuit working with PD, 15 years of operation speak for it.
                  + With SRS, there is simply no problem anymore - there gases from the engines do not get into the air intakes. But you still stubbornly say that the scheme is not working in any way?
                  1. maximghost
                    maximghost 29 December 2017 20: 02
                    +1

                    This would have completely left no questions.
  26. mkpda
    mkpda 20 December 2017 14: 20
    0
    VTOL - ersatz by definition. Therefore, when deciding to launch such a project, options with full-fledged equipment will be taken into account. It is also worth noting that the VTOL aircraft has a much wider application than a purely deck aircraft. If developers can increase its combat load during vertical take-off with an acceptable range, then such a project will be relevant (with its relative high cost).
    1. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek 20 December 2017 20: 28
      0
      Yes, only with the F-35V did it become on a par with conventional fighters.
  27. maximghost
    maximghost 20 December 2017 16: 03
    +2
    sd68,
    But what’s the point, even if hot gases do not enter the air intakes, such an engine gives less thrust than alternative combinations of several engines. In addition, it also has other disadvantages (for example, a large cross section).
    1. Taoist
      Taoist 20 December 2017 18: 10
      +1
      You are talking to an illiterate troll - he does not understand this.
      1. sd68
        sd68 20 December 2017 23: 25
        0
        Oh, got out again. I’m all right, Yakovlev, too, was far from your understanding ....
    2. sd68
      sd68 20 December 2017 23: 22
      0
      differences in engine thrust at low altitudes - when gases enter the air intakes, at the most dangerous moment.
      Plus problems with the instability of speed and traction of different engines, which is excluded if there is only one engine.
      plus problems with starting engines in the air - because of this accident happened more than once.
      Yakovlev understood why only a single-engine scheme was really operational.
      This is confirmed by life - there are only two successful developments of ATSS- and both are single-engine with compressed air in front.
      everyone else fell away.
      1. Dalailama
        Dalailama 22 December 2017 20: 06
        +1
        Is the problematic F-35 with some joy among them?
        YouTube says that, unlike the United States, all these problems in the USSR were successfully resolved.
  28. Taoist
    Taoist 20 December 2017 18: 20
    +1
    Zaurbek,
    Naturally. because with the growth of the mass of the machine we need to increase the vertical component of the thrust - and this is either an increase in the temperature (speed) of the flow or the mass of the pumped air. But since in the formula we have a square of speed and the mass of air is simple - that’s it ... without options. (this is not even considering the issue of overcoming the sound barrier (which is simply impossible with a subsonic flow velocity).
    By the way, a similar “dead end” among the British came with their famous Dervents ... - using a centrifugal compressor they solved the problem of gas-dynamic stability of the engine but thereby blocked its development and supersonic output ... As a result, a successful engine remained a dead end and turbojet engines developed with axial compressor.
    1. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek 20 December 2017 20: 26
      0
      And with all this, such an engine as the British could not repeat competitors (traction, reliability, and relatively cold gases)
      1. maximghost
        maximghost 20 December 2017 20: 37
        +2
        The British, as far as I remember, bought it themselves, though not completely ready. Then, an airplane was built around the engine. The rest of the similar engine was simply not needed.
        1. Zaurbek
          Zaurbek 20 December 2017 20: 40
          0
          At that time, VTOL aircraft were seen as a full-fledged alternative to conventional aircraft and this was true ... but an engine like RR
          1. maximghost
            maximghost 20 December 2017 22: 20
            +1
            but an engine like RR

            In 1954, French aircraft designer Michel Vibault developed a VTOL project based on the Orion engine. Having patented the technology, he turned to the NATO development management and received from him the task, together with Bristol Engines, to create a new engine for such an aircraft. The Orion engine was too weak for combat VTOL and in its place, they soon put a new power plant based on the Orpheus engine. A complex called BE53 was demonstrated at the Le Bourget air show, where Hawker engineers met him. They entered into a joint work with the creators of the power plant - this is how the BE53 Pegasus modified and unique power plant appeared.

            Here is the story. I lied a little here too.

            At that time, VTOL aircraft were seen as a complete alternative to conventional aircraft

            Well, the British partially and switched to VTOL. if my memory serves me right, they transferred all the attack aircraft to harriers. Although, again, I can lie - all the more so as I do not understand the structure of the sun from the word at all. But the harrier itself is not a particularly outstanding aircraft. Although after all the upgrades, he became much cooler, he still lagged behind normal aircraft. Its prevalence is precisely based on the fact that it is VTOL. All countries that had light aircraft carriers (England, India, Thailand, Spain, Italy, etc.) + American marines with their UDC were forced to buy harriers.
            1. sd68
              sd68 20 December 2017 23: 24
              0
              Harrier is not just an outstanding aircraft, it is unique in its niche, essno.
              1. maximghost
                maximghost 21 December 2017 01: 02
                +2
                In terms of its performance characteristics, it is rather mediocre and has always been like that. You have already been told that the first harriers in their characteristics were very close to 38 yaks. It’s just that the harrier always paid more attention, both in terms of modernization (ours sought to create a new aircraft that could fly at supersonic, then the British and Americans milked the harrier to the end), and in terms of PR.
                1. sd68
                  sd68 29 December 2017 11: 33
                  0
                  Harrier is the only aircraft in its niche at that time to be used in many countries - primarily because of the stability of the key take-off and landing modes that are key for VTOL aircraft - thus unique.
                  dictionary to help
                  1. Dalailama
                    Dalailama 6 January 2018 02: 49
                    0
                    His stability was no better. The USSR did not sell its Yaks to anyone, then Russia, except in Lockheed.
  29. Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 20 December 2017 20: 21
    0
    Spez,
    So maybe it was necessary to do it in 2 versions .... although I do not think that in the usual version it will be better than the MiG-29 ...
  30. Zaurbek
    Zaurbek 20 December 2017 20: 24
    0
    Spez,
    So the Americans deliberately designed the aircraft in three versions. And you want to make a separate VTOL for the same day. This is a very difficult task and I am afraid ours may not be able to cope with this. And yes, if VTOL is to be developed, then only in one glider with the Light Fighter ... but this is very risky.
    1. Spez
      Spez 20 December 2017 22: 29
      +1
      Cope. And experience 141 showed it. Further development of this project implied some species diversity. Now it’s not technically difficult to restore the project, but it will be a step back. the main problem is not in technology, and not even in money. The problem is in the frames. What happened in the 80s-90s in our aviation industry I know firsthand: my whole family worked for the Yakovlev company. I was a foreman at LIK, my mother was a senior technologist in the same place, my father was appointed the chief controller by that time, before that he was the production manager. so there were talented engineers in the aircraft industry, and then effective managers came in ...
      1. sd68
        sd68 20 December 2017 23: 57
        0
        "experience 141" - is it that he crashed and failed the tests due to systemic flaws in the applied scheme?
        so this is a negative experience.
        and the attempts of searchlights based on it, such as the Yak-43, were “the same kind of species diversity” —that they were needed even less than the primary basis.
        The Soviet Union collapsed, and no one was going to produce and buy an unsuccessful aircraft by the will of the Politburo ....
        1. maximghost
          maximghost 21 December 2017 01: 11
          +2
          "experience 141" - is it that he crashed and failed the tests due to systemic flaws in the applied scheme?

          During the tests, at least two harrier were lost, and then what? Also write to the shortcomings of the circuit?
          For reference - the Yak-141 crashed due to a mistake of the test pilot and flight director.

          I see you are branding all sectarians here, but in the end it turns out that you yourself are from the sect of opponents 141).
          1. Spez
            Spez 21 December 2017 01: 35
            +2
            You don’t have enough beads;)
            1. Dalailama
              Dalailama 26 December 2017 21: 29
              0
              As if yes, and appetites are growing.
              https://topwar.ru/132679-chernomorskiy-sudostroit
              elnyy-zavod-avianoscy-i-shpionazh.html # comment-id
              -7709967 qualifying.
              https://topwar.ru/132432-podgotovka-k-shvatke-s-f
              -35b-ifa-18e-apgreyd-peredovogo-sobrata-yak-141
              -i-problemy-uzkoprofilnosti-su-33.html # comment-id
              -7709452 qualifying.
          2. sd68
            sd68 29 December 2017 11: 30
            0
            Harrier’s abilities are confirmed by many years of combat experience, which can not be said neither about the Yak-38, nor about the Yak-141 built according to the same scheme.
            For reference, the Yak-141 crashed due to the inherent instability of landing and take-off modes, which was manifested even with the Yak-38 and earlier, starting with the Conveyor model 200, hacked at the stage of preliminary design into the crawler of single-engine Rockwell and Mirage 3, and instability such that even test pilots coped with it with difficulty in greenhouse conditions.
            Well to speak about combat pilots in a combat situation ....
            As for the "opponents", I just write objective facts ....
            1. Dalailama
              Dalailama 29 December 2017 17: 57
              0
              What else do they write in corporate magazines after corporate events?
              Ability Yak-38 combat experience confirmed. Why was there no rotary nozzle on this single-engine, non-flying Rockwell (and Mirage)? Then on the F-35 it suddenly appeared "back". The pilots could not encounter any instability on a paper model 200 because it was never made.
  31. sd68
    sd68 20 December 2017 23: 53
    0
    What aircraft were you planning to develop in the USSR?
    June 26, 1974 issued a directive of the Central Committee of the CPSU and the Council of Ministers of the USSR, which officially began the development of a new Yak-41. The initial task provided for the use of a single power plant with one PMD. A full-size model of such an aircraft was assembled. But in the course of work on it, it turned out that for a machine with one PMD they could not develop the provision of stabilizing the flight in vertical flight modes, something that they could do on the Harrier and F-35.
    And the task changed, returned to the scheme with three engines.
    What naturally ended up broken during the tests of the Yak-141 and the complete closure of the project - no one needed the machine in this form in the world.
    And now it’s funny to observe how the “sect of witnesses Yak-141” proves with all its strength that there is no difference between a single-engine machine and a three-engine one.
    In the USSR, this difference was well understood, as was Yakovlev himself. But they did not master the single-engine version.
    as in the case of the yak-38, by the way.
    can, from the third time it will turn out now. If it really works out, then the F-35 will obviously be cheaper and there will be demand in the world for it
    1. maximghost
      maximghost 21 December 2017 01: 13
      +1
      that for a machine with one PMD, they were not able to develop support for stabilizing flight in vertical flight modes

      I’m embarrassed to ask, but how is this stabilization provided in your opinion?
      1. Dalailama
        Dalailama 26 December 2017 21: 27
        0
        While you are shy, he sows his quintessence here and there
        https://topwar.ru/132679-chernomorskiy-sudostroit
        elnyy-zavod-avianoscy-i-shpionazh.html # comment-id
        -7709967 qualifying.
        https://topwar.ru/132432-podgotovka-k-shvatke-s-f
        -35b-ifa-18e-apgreyd-peredovogo-sobrata-yak-141
        -i-problemy-uzkoprofilnosti-su-33.html # comment-id
        -7709452 qualifying.
      2. sd68
        sd68 29 December 2017 11: 24
        0
        I’m embarrassed to ask, but to ask myself, no, not fate?
        if there are substantive objections, write them, and if not, study for yourself ...
        success
  32. tank64rus
    tank64rus 22 December 2017 19: 22
    +2
    To destroy the Saratov aircraft plant, Boeing paid 90 million in the 600s. dollars. Where the money went into whose pockets, the question is, but instead of the factory there is a shopping center. They opened a criminal case twice, but as you know, they quickly stopped. Yes, the Yak-141 would be a headache for the US Air Force and therefore they solved the issue with a purely American bribe to the 5th convoy, but they did their best. After all, no one will ever answer for this.
  33. Taoist
    Taoist 28 January 2018 12: 07
    +1
    Quote: Snakebyte
    Stop dodging already.
    1. The tests were successful, the engine can be found in at least two museums.
    2. The creation of supersonic VTOL aircraft was abandoned for other reasons. Firstly, the rejection of the doctrine of massive nuclear war (during which all major airfields would have been destroyed), and secondly, 4-generation fighters were approaching that did not require a multi-kilometer runway to take off and land.
    3. Despite the “flying model brought to the series”, LM’s cooperation with Yakovlev Design Bureau was curtailed, the lifting system was developed by RR, which had its own achievements long before (even if the documentation of Yakovlev Design Bureau was transferred to him).
    In general, to say that LM saved ten years and billions is a huge exaggeration.

    Do not forget to add IMHO. And if you do not know how the engine on the stand differs from the engine in the air ... Well ... this is your grief. As well as why the Super Harrier program was actually closed. Well, the amount of “money and time saved” is at least extrapolated from how much it took us. (What I just witnessed).
  34. Snakebyte
    Snakebyte 26 February 2018 11: 20
    0
    Pingo,
    "Remaking only the tail" is tantamount to designing a new aircraft. Moreover, for supersonic aerodynamics should be different. After the refusal of the army and navy from the vertical lines, the need for them remained with the American ILC, the navy of Great Britain and Spain, which had the corresponding carriers. They could not pull the program on their own; they had to manage with the modernization of the Harrier. And joining the promising 5th generation program.
    The F-35B was designed for the remaining Harrier operators - It is worth noting that this option, the smallest, was the most problematic and expensive to fine-tune. But, still cheaper than designing it from scratch. And it is cheaper to design and build new carrier ships (it would have been necessary to build classic catapult aircraft carriers).
    1. Pingo
      Pingo 27 February 2018 00: 37
      +1
      Only the tail, Harrier did not reach the speed of sound, although aerodynamics are designed for M = 1,3. Its main user was the English pic.
      Without interest, nothing was developed / copied, neither the XFV-12 nor the F-35B.
      1. Snakebyte
        Snakebyte 27 February 2018 08: 36
        0
        Quote: Pingo
        Only the tail, Harrier did not reach the speed of sound, although aerodynamics are designed for M = 1,3.

        Not just the tail. All the gas dynamics of vertical take-off will change.
        There is no supersonic, because there is no afterburner. Even now, not every airplane without afterburner is supersonic.
        Quote: Pingo
        Its main user was the English pic.

        60 boards. Where is the American ILC with their 336.
        Quote: Pingo
        Without interest, nothing was developed / copied, neither the XFV-12 nor the F-35B.

        There was interest, there was no money for development.
        1. Pingo
          Pingo 27 February 2018 12: 03
          0
          This nozzle, not even a tail. Supersound was not in horizontal flight. There were 830. Developed and copied all this for nothing?
          1. Snakebyte
            Snakebyte 27 February 2018 13: 46
            0
            Quote: Pingo
            This nozzle, not even a tail.

            Clear. It is useless to explain.
            Quote: Pingo
            Supersound was not in horizontal flight.

            In a dive to supersonic anything can be dispersed.
            Quote: Pingo
            They were 830

            The first and second, I cited data for the second (Harrier II), which replaced the first. And they were in other countries in an amount comparable to the FAC.
            Quote: Pingo
            Developed and copied all this for nothing?

            There were programs that funded. Then the programs were closed. All this has already been described many times. Enlighten yourself.
            1. Pingo
              Pingo 27 February 2018 15: 57
              0
              Explain more about the 0th efficiency of the Su-57. MiG-15 did not accelerate. With all this, the size of the country itself whose PIC in which were not replaced? They closed when there was no interest due to the fact that they themselves didn’t succeed if they couldn’t get someone to borrow the AV-8B, which was also stolen.
              1. Pingo
                Pingo 28 February 2018 00: 58
                0
                first harrier

                FAC - 154
                CF - 60

                United States ILC - 110

                Spain - 4
                Thailand - 9
                India - 23


                second harrier

                United States ILC - 238
                FAC - 109
                CF - 18 (new and 34 more conversion ones, total 52).

                Spain - 20
                23 divided by US and Spain
                43 divided by US and Italy (more in Italy)
                Italy - 2

                Data on new, excluding alterations and resales.
                Up to 336 US ILCs could only rise by buying up used ones.


                109 and 154 in FAC and 60 and 52 in CF are far from 60, while the first Harrier in large numbers in England continued to be used.
  35. bayard
    bayard 26 May 2018 00: 54
    0
    Zaurbek,
    Firstly, Harrier had a fan and its diameter just inflated his case; secondly, in the single-engine scheme there was also its weakness - a lack of vertical thrust, which did not build up without increasing the diameter of the fan and power (weight) of the engine itself with all the ensuing problems; and thirdly, it’s yes - a dead end, you won’t wait for supersonic sound from Pegasus, no matter how you feed ...
    Lifting motors are the same: compact (the body is not swollen, the aerodynamics do not suffer), it is much lighter than a fan with a power take-off shaft and gearbox, it is easier to manufacture, maintain and operate. And with all these advantages, they do not lead to an excessive consumption of fuel in comparison with a drive fan. As a result, we can get a plane with normal - disfigured aerodynamics, which means it has better weight than the competitor’s and the saved weight, which will allow you to take extra fuel or bomb load.
    I vote for separate lifting and lifting-marching engines!
    1. Zaurbek
      Zaurbek 26 May 2018 09: 26
      0
      There are pros and cons there ... But what about the deck of the ship? A fan cools the jets from the engine ... Harrier's scheme is ideal for subsonic VTOL and the most advanced in terms of weight.